Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Ministerial Duties

Philip Hollobone: What proportion of his working time in the last six months has been spent on matters relating to Wales.

Peter Hain: I give the job all the time it needs to deliver for Wales and have achieved a phenomenal amount in the past six months, including Royal Assent for the landmark Government of Wales Act 2006, which the hon. Gentleman and his party fought against tooth and nail.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but despite his best efforts, is he aware of the growing concern in Wales that given his responsibilities for Northern Ireland and his interest in becoming the next Deputy Prime Minister, Wales might not be getting the attention that it deserves from its Secretary of State?

Chris Bryant: How would he know?

Peter Hain: Indeed, how would he know? I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on his audacity, given that he moonlights as a local councillor in Kettering. In the future, if his Front-Bench colleagues got their way and we saw second-class status for Welsh MPs, with English MPs restricted to dealing with English legislation, he would not be able even to ask such a question, and we would see the Balkanisation of Parliament, which would be a disaster for the United Kingdom that would lead to constitutional chaos.

David Davies: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently told the people there that they should be green with envy at the financial settlement that he had got for them? Should not the people of Wales be red with anger at the fact that their representative in Parliament and the Cabinet is not doing the same for them?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has another job as well because he is an Assembly Member. I am amazed that he has the time to come to Welsh questions. I would have thought that he would be on the backs of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for their disgraceful policy of wishing to break up the United Kingdom by joining an alliance with Plaid Cymru to create second-class status for Welsh MPs. He should be ashamed of himself.

Lembit �pik: rose

Hon. Members: Hello!

Lembit �pik: That is last week's joke.
	What proportion of the Secretary of State's time was spent on Welsh environmental issues? Does he agree that Wales could benefit hugely from the new Energy Technologies Institute's 1 billion budget? Will he spend time over the next six months lobbying his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to attend a key event at the Centre for Alternative Technology, which is near Machynlleth in Montgomeryshire, that will showcase the potential of Wales to work with and benefit from the new ETI and its funding?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friendsrather unfairly, I thoughtshouted, Hello, at the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he scrubbed up rather nicely, or rather cheekily, in  Hello! magazine. I will indeed urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to explore how organisations in Wales, especially the Centre for Alternative Technology in Machynlleth, which my right hon. Friend visited last August, can contribute to this vital agenda, in which I share an interest with the hon. Gentleman.

RAF St. Athan

Andrew Rosindell: What recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on the future of RAF St. Athan.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Defence Ministers on a range of issues, including the current and future use of RAF St. Athan.

Andrew Rosindell: I understand that the defence training contract will be announced shortly. If it is awarded to St. Athan, will the Minister tell us what impact that will have on jobs in Wales?

Nick Ainger: As you know, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement on the defence training review at 12.30 pm. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the outcome. However, it is well known that if the St. Athan bid is successful, it will have a substantial impact on Wales. We are talking about more than 5,000 jobs coming to Wales and an investment of 14 billion. If the bid is successful for the Metrix consortium, it will be evidence of the private and public sectors in Wales working together and coming forward with a world-beating bid to provide excellent training facilities for our defence forces.

John Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the new military academy comes to RAF St. Athan, which is in my constituency, it will have an economy-transforming impact on south Wales because we will see the biggest single public investment ever in our country?

Nick Ainger: Yes, if that is the outcome. Again, I do not want to prejudge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's statement at 12.30 pm, but if that is the outcome, it will undoubtedly be the largest public-sector investment in Wales, and possibly in the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend says. It would put up to 58 million a year into the Welsh economy over the next 25 years. As he says, it would have a transforming influence on the economy of not just his constituency, but the valleys and the Cardiff-to-Newport corridor.

Robert Walter: If that announcement is made at 12.30 pm, it will have a devastating impact on my constituency. Will the Minister confirm that the Welsh Assembly Government, through the Welsh Development Agency, have made available 100 million for infrastructure to support the Metrix bid? Does he agree that if the contract, worth up to 16 billion, is awarded to south Wales, it will enhance Labour Assembly Members' prospects of being re-elected to the Assembly, and therefore of retaining control of the Welsh Assembly?

Nick Ainger: I had a certain amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman until he made that last comment. The fact is that the Ministry of Defence ensured that the awarding of the contract was subject to a rigorous impartial evaluation process, which means that whatever the outcome announced in less than an hour's time, it will be based straightforwardly on the quality of the winning bid. To claim that there is some sort of dirty, backstairs deal being done, as the hon. Gentleman implies, demeans him and the party that he represents.

Chris Bryant: As Wales represents 6 per cent. of the population, but 9 per cent. of the armed forces, is not the most important point about the two contracts, if they are awarded to St. Athan, the fact that we will be providing our troops with what they really need and deserve, namely the very best training, which they need for modern warfare and modern peacekeeping?

Nick Ainger: Absolutely. Obviously, there are huge economic benefits to the awarding of the contract, but the most important issue, and the reason why the Ministry of Defence went down the road of looking into establishing a defence training academy, is to improve and expand the training for our armed forces. That is the driver behind the decision. The issue is not just the benefits that the decision will bring to Wales but, as my hon. Friend saysand I congratulate him on all his work in dealing with and supporting the Metrix bidthe fact that our forces will have a state-of-the-art defence academy to provide them with the best training possible.

Cheryl Gillan: Mr. Deputy Speaker [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I offer an unreserved apology.
	We know that we do not always need to disagree in politics, and I know that the Minister and II speak for my party's Front-Benchersare equally keen that the contract for the training of our forces should be awarded to St. Athan later today. Indeed, I am on record as having supported the bid right from the start, along with colleagues on the other Benches. However, we understand that each Member will fight for their own constituency interests, and should be allowed to do so. Does he agree that such a decision would underline the enormous benefit to Wales of being a full participant in the United Kingdom, and would not have been made at all if the separatists, some of whom sit in the House, who even oppose recruitment to the armed forces in Wales, had their way by tearing Wales out of the Union?

Nick Ainger: Well, may I tell the hon. Lady that the road that her party seems to be taking in pursuing an English Parliament is actually contributing to the separation of the United Kingdom? Only a few weeks ago, her party in Wales was clearly in discussions about forming a coalition with the nationalists, so perhaps

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are straying a little far from RAF St. Athan.

Railway Companies

Jennifer Willott: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the performance of railway companies in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss issues affecting Wales, including the performance of railway companies.

Jennifer Willott: As a south Wales MP, I receive many complaints from constituents about Arriva trains, objecting to long delays, cancellations, services that skip stations when they are running late, and overcrowded trains. Given that Arriva ticket prices have increased by 5.5 per cent. this yearwell above the national average for a service that is well below averagewhat action has the Minister taken, and what does he plan to do, to improve that service?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Lady criticises Arriva trains, and in the past her comments would have been fair. However, improvements have been made to the Welsh services awarded to Arriva under the franchise. There has been a welcome improvement in the punctuality of Arriva trains, which rose by 6 per cent from the second quarter in 2005-06 to 85.6 per cent. in the second quarter of 2006-07. There is still a long way to go, but substantial investment has been made in the Arriva franchise by the Welsh Assembly Government, including the provision of longer trains and investment in stations so that they can be served by such trains. We will keep a close eye on Arriva's performance, as we will with First Great Western.

Nia Griffith: I am sure that my hon. Friend has read reports in  The Western Mail about an impending price war between two train companies, which could lead to people with a valid ticket being left on the station, unable to board a particular train. What talks has he had with his colleagues in the Department for Transport to put pressure on those companies to avert such a price war, which would affect people in Llanelli and west Wales, who regularly have to use both companies, as only one of them serves areas west of Swansea?

Nick Ainger: I will meet the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), to discuss those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) makes an important point, particularly about the position of Arriva customers who travel beyond Swansea and want to connect to a First Great Western service. We must ensure that we provide joined-up rail services, and further discussions need to take place between Arriva and First Great Western. I will urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to address the problem and encourage the companies to work together more constructively.

Hywel Williams: I recently made a journey from Swansea to Bangor that took just over 10 hours on Arriva trains that were uniformly dirty and covered in graffitian improvement, according to the Under-Secretary. That service receives a public subsidy from the Welsh Assembly Government, but those conditions demonstrate contempt for the paying public. Is he confident that his colleagues in Cardiff understand the meaning of value for money, given the subsidy that they provide?

Nick Ainger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we cut the subsidy.

Hywel Williams: indicated dissent.

Nick Ainger: I am glad that he is not doing so, because it would result in a reduction in the services provided under the franchise. Because of the previous Government's failure to make any significant investment in our railway infrastructure it will take a long time to achieve the quality of service that passengers expect and deserve. Improvements, however, are on the way. The Government are investing 110 million a week in the rail infrastructure, which will lead to significant benefits in performance. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that those investments have been made in Wales only because the UK Government are prepared to invest in infrastructure throughout the United Kingdom. His policies would cause the break-up of the United Kingdom and end that investment.

Si�n James: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the decision made by First Great Western to cancel the important 17.18 peak time service between Cardiff and Swansea? Unlike its fellow Welsh operators, Arriva and Virgin Cross Country, which are among the best performers in the country, First Great Western is among the poorest.

Nick Ainger: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaign to try and retain the 3.15 service from Paddington through to Swansea. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had a number of discussions with Andrew Davies, the Minister in the Assembly, and I have had a meeting about the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris). We will continue to press First Great Western for a review of its decision and for a significant improvement in its overall performance. Customers of First Great Western are not getting the service that they deserve and expect. On Sunday I had a four and a half hour journey on First Great Western with no catering available at all. That is unfair not just on me, but on all the other passengers. First Great Western needs to work with the Department for Transport to improve its performance.

Free Bus Travel

Mark Harper: What discussions he has had with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on implementation of free bus travel across the England-Wales border.

Peter Hain: I have regular discussions with Welsh Assembly Government colleagues on transport matters, including the Welsh free bus travel scheme for over-60s and disabled people.

Mark Harper: One of the issues in my constituency is the impact of the national border when bus journeys go across it. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport is making sure that the new framework legislation will enable a seamless transition. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State for Wales could press his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government to take up that framework legislation to ensure that we can have seamless journeys across the English-Welsh border.

Peter Hain: Indeed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Welsh Assembly Government Ministers will do that. I congratulate him on supporting bus services, as Mrs. Thatcher once said:
	Any man who rides a bus to work after the age of 26 can count himself a failure,
	and Steven Norris, when Transport Minister, said that bus passengers are dreadful human beings. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is contradicting that record.

Mark Tami: Over 20,000 elderly and disabled people in Flintshire have benefited from the scheme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it and similar schemes could be endangered if we ever saw a ragbag coalition of separatist Tories and nationalists running the Assembly?

Peter Hain: Indeed. Not only would that policy be under threat, but the entire future of the United Kingdom would be under threat from the Tories' policy of creating an English Parliament, relegating Scots and Welsh MPs, and presumably Northern Ireland MPs in the future, to second-class status. That is a recipe for the break-up of the United Kingdom and for such policies to be destroyed.

Gershon Review

Elfyn Llwyd: Whether he has met Treasury Ministers and the First Minister in Wales to discuss the effect of the Gershon review job reductions on west Wales and the valleys objective 1 area.

Nick Ainger: I met the Paymaster General on Monday to discuss the effect of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' change programme on west Wales and the valleys and Wales as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed the issue with the First Minister.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that useful reply. He will know that nearly 50 jobs have been lost in the Department for Work and Pensions office in Porthmadog and that there are further threats to about 50 in the Revenue office. The loss of 100 jobs in a small town in the objective 1 area is a devastating blow. May I ask him sincerely to redouble his effortsI know he willto have the policy changed so that it does not devastate that area of north-west Wales?

Nick Ainger: HMRC has not announced any office closures. The programme of regional reviews announced in November is a consultation exercise. Published future staff numbers are initial proposals only. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that before withdrawing any office, a full impact assessment will be undertaken, including an assessment of the impact on the local economy. I agreed with the Paymaster General that we would meet again with the First Minister to discuss these matters, but I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), that if we did not have a United Kingdom Government, these issues would not be discussed. His policy on separation of the United Kingdom would deny his

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent service that the Bangor Revenue office provides to the whole of north-west Wales. It employs many of my constituents, but those jobs are under threat. Will he press the Treasury, as I and many other Members have pressed the Department for Work and Pensions, to ensure that we provide a full bilingual service to people in north-west Wales? The DWP accepted that and moved Revenue jobs from south Wales; now is the time to keep them in north-west Wales.

Nick Ainger: I can tell my hon. Friend that HMRC recognises the needs of its Welsh-speaking customers, especially during this period of change, and is seeking a better understanding of their requirements across the range of HMRC services. I will discuss that with the Paymaster General and the First Minister when we meet again.

David Jones: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen)? The Minister may be aware that of the 35 members of staff [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

David Jones: The Minister may be aware that of the 35 members of staff at the Revenue office in Porthmadog, 24 are Welsh speakers. There are another 44 Welsh speakers in the Bangor, Rhyl and Colwyn Bay cluster. Can he confirm that he recognises the importance to people in north Wales of receiving a Welsh language service from the Revenue office? Has he impressed that on his colleague, the Paymaster General?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Porthmadog office deals with telephone and written correspondence in Welsh. The formal consultation on the future of that office will not begin until after April 2008, so there is plenty of time for representations to be made by Members, trade unions and stakeholders, not only in north Wales but throughout Wales. I assure him that the Paymaster General and I will take up the matter with the First Minister when we meet again.

Police Funding

James Duddridge: What recent discussions he has had with the Home Office and the Welsh Assembly Government on police funding in Wales.

Peter Hain: The Government continue to provide huge increases in resources for the police service. The recent announcement of more than 450 million in total funding for 2007-08 represents another good deal for Wales.

James Duddridge: In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety stated:
	We are committed to ensuring that Neighbourhood Policing will be introduced to every community in England and Wales by April 2007, and that every community will have a Neighbourhood Policing team by April 2008.[ Official Report, 23 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1679W.]
	Given that the police in Wales have said that that will not be possible under the current funding settlement, can the Minister still guarantee that it will be fully funded and fully implemented in Wales?

Peter Hain: Of course we want to see neighbourhood policing rolled out right across Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Indeed, under this Labour Government we have had 1,000 more police officers and 1,300 more police support officers in Wales, compared with the consistent cuts in police officers and police budgets under the Tory Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Ian Lucas: There are more police officers in north Wales than ever before, and the introduction of community support officers has brought neighbourhood policing to streets in Wrexham and other parts of north Wales. Will my right hon. Friend have a quiet word with some of those who are bleating in north Wales to get them to enjoy the benefits of a rising budget rather than the contraction that would be brought about if we ever had a ragtag coalition of nationalists and Tories running Wales?

Peter Hain: I could not have put it better myself. Neighbourhood policing in north Wales is indeed of a high standard. It would be put at risk, not only for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, but if the Leader of the Opposition's policy of 21 billion of cuts in Labour's spending plans were implemented.

Cheryl Gillan: Does not the Secretary of State realise how hollow his words ring and how out of touch he is with what is happening on the ground? What does he say to people in places such as Abergele and Old Colwyn, who are losing dedicated community beat officers, or our chief constables in Wales, who have to take officers off the beat to fill civilian desk jobs? Where has all the money gone and why does Labour continue to fail to deliver proper policing for the people of Wales?

Peter Hain: The truth is that there are 1,000 more police officers and 1,300 more police support officers under Labour, crime has decreased and people see neighbourhood policing that they never saw under the Tories. The clear choice for everybody in Wales at the Welsh Assembly elections in May is voting Labour and against the ragtag, Tory-led, Plaid Cymru coalition that opposes us.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Peter Bone: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 January.

Tony Blair: Sadly, before listing my engagements, I must once again ask the House to join me in sending our condolences to the families and friends of the three servicemen killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past few days. They were: Royal Marine Thomas Curry of 42 Commando; Lance Corporal Mathew Ford of 45 Commando, and Kingsman Alex Green from the 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. They were all performing vital roles in working towards a safer and more secure world for this country and the whole global community, and we should be very proud of them.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Peter Bone: May I be associated with the Prime Minister's opening remarks?
	On 30 November 2005 at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister guaranteed that nobody would wait more than six months for a national health service operation. Every month since then, that guarantee has proved worthless and bogus. Today, official Government figures show that 15,832 patients are waiting more than six months. Why?

Tony Blair: They do not, as a matter of fact; literally a handful of people on the in-patient list wait more than six months. That contrasts with the position in 1997, when 300,000 people waited more than six months. There has been a dramatic improvement, with the waiting listthe lowest since records began400,000 down since we came to office and waiting times now an average of seven weeks. I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me point that out.

Keith Vaz: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning racism and xenophobia in any form, including on the so-called reality television show Big Brother, which has prompted 13,000 individual complaints? Does not he agree that it is important that broadcasters take great care before broadcasting any such prejudices to millions of people throughout the country?

Tony Blair: First, let me tell my right hon. Friend that I have not seen the programme in question and I cannot therefore comment on it. Of course, I agree entirely with the principle that he outlined: we should oppose racism in all its forms.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Royal Marine Thomas Curry, Kingsman Alexander Green and Lance Corporal Mathew Ford. I also congratulate the Royal Marines on the bravery of their operation to recover Lance Corporal Ford's body. It was a reminder of the incredible professionalism of our armed forces.
	Last week, the junior Home Office Minister responsible told us that she knew nothing about the fiasco of the foreign criminal records. Now we know that she was receiving and signing letters about the issue as long ago as October. Why is she still in her job?

Tony Blair: As the permanent secretary indicated in his evidence yesterday, the backlog was not drawn to the Minister's attention. There is an internal inquiry about exactly what took place. Let me emphasise that, as I explained last week and shall explain again this week, since the Association of Chief Police Officers and those people at the Home Office have gone through the matter, no significant public protection issues have arisen so far in respect of the Criminal Records Bureau checks. It is correct thatsince May 2006, when ACPO was given responsibility for the mattera new system is in place. It is working well but, of course, we have had to work through the backlog of cases. Let me emphasise that we are in no different a position on the matter from any other European country.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister tries to say this is not serious, but someone went on to kill and a people trafficker was cleared to work with children. The Prime Minister's defence seems to be that the Minister knew about the problem, but not about the backlogbut the problem was the backlog. Do we not want Ministers who are going to ask some questions and show some judgment, rather than just operating like giant franking machines signing letters? The Prime Minister could clear up a lot of this if he published the letter that the Association of Chief Police Officers sent to the Home Office. Why does he not publish that letter? It is probably in his file right there. Go on and publish it.

Tony Blair: First, let me point out that if the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the case that was in the newspapers at the weekend, my understanding is that this particular individual in fact was on the police national computer. Secondly, let me point out that it is simply not correct to say that the problem was the backlog alone. The problem was that there was no proper system and had not ever been a proper system [Interruption.]for the exchange of information between European countries. That has now changed. Indeed, I can tell the House that, in addition, there is a proposal from Germany, France, Spain and other countries now to connect databases across Europe. We will look very carefully at that, but it is simply not right to say that this was a problem that we had and no other country had. Every country had it. We have now introduced a new system. If I may say, yet again with this issue, as with many others, prior to 1999 there were absolutely no records kept at all.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister likes to tell us that he believes in freedom of information, so I ask him again: publishing the letter would not harm national security or confidentiality, so publish the letterwhy not?

Tony Blair: There is an inquiry under way and when it completes its investigation, everything will be published fully so that people can see it. Let me however once again repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not an issue where prior to May 2006 there should have been a proper system in place in Britain, because there was no proper system in place across Europe. We have now introduced a proper system for the very first time, and that means, as with many of the other issues, for the first time data are being properly collected and acted upon.

David Cameron: So much for freedom of information. Let me ask the Prime Minister about the inquiry. Will he confirm that it will look at the role played by Ministers, including the Home Secretary?

Tony Blair: Of course it will look at the role played by Ministers; it will look at the role played by everybody. I simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman the evidence that was given yesterday by the permanent secretary.

David Cameron: Let us be clear. This inquiry is being carried out by the head of personnel at the Home Office. If this scandal had happened in a care home, in a hospital or in any business in this country, do you think you would ask the head of personnel to conduct the inquiry? This comes at the end of the week in which two more murderers have walked out of open prison, the immigration staff at Heathrow say they cannot cope and potential terrorists walk free from house arrest and nothing is done. The Government's response when things go wrong is to put junior officials in charge of an inquiry. Does that not show that this Government and these Ministers are interested in protecting themselves, not in protecting the public?

Tony Blair: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, since he mentioned control orders and terrorism, that it was the desire of this side of the House to detain people. We were the Government who introduced legislation toughening up the laws on terrorism which he and his colleagues voted against. The one group of people we will not take lessons from on control orders or action on terrorism is him and his colleagues.

Nick Palmer: I have a constituent whose life expectancy is no more than four months. He has asked me to pass on his experience that, first, people in that situation, especially those under chemotherapy, do not get the full support from the benefits system that they need; and, secondly, that he fully supports the Government's effort to merge databases within the Government so that others do not have to go through the multiple form-filling that he has had to go through. Will the Prime Minister ask the Department for Work and Pensions to take account of both points?

Tony Blair: I know that there has been a meeting with the relevant Minister. It is very important that we look at the support that we give to people in this situation, and obviously I am grateful for the support in relation to the sharing of information, but it is important that we ensure that the appropriate help is given, and that can sometimes be through the benefit system rather than through specific allowances which, in this case, are really directed towards pensioners.

Menzies Campbell: Once again, I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy and condolence for those who have lost their lives in the service of their country.
	Yesterday, the Government appeared before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in order to explain their decision to drop the investigations into allegations of corruption in relation to arms sales to Saudi Arabia. When will the Prime Minister publish and make public the Government's submissions to the OECD so that the British public can judge for themselves?

Tony Blair: They can already judge for themselves because we have made it clear the reasons why my advicecertainlywas that the investigation would do enormous damage to our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I said that because I believed then, and believe now, that it would do enormous damage to our co-operation on terrorism, and to issues to do with security and the broader middle eastquite apart from the thousands of jobs that would have been lost as a result of the loss of that contract, although that was not the reason why the decision was taken. I believe that that was right then, and I believe that it is right now. Sometimes, in government, I have to give such advice and take responsibility for acting in the interests of the country as a whole. The Government have to put those views forward. I put them forward then; I believed them to be right then and I believe them to be right now.

Menzies Campbell: As a result of that answer, can we now expect the other current investigations into allegations of corruption in arms salesin relation to Tanzania, for exampleto be dropped in the same way? How can the Government's handling of this squalid affair be in any way squared with the Prime Minister's promise that his Government would be whiter than white?

Tony Blair: To be frank, I would have greater respect for the opinion put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he were prepared to accept that, irrespective of the damage to our relationship with Saudi Arabia, the investigation should none the less proceed. But when he attempts, somehow, to have it both ways by saying that there would not really be any damage, and that the investigation should none the less proceed, he simply indicates once again what the problem with the Liberal Democrats is: they are an object lesson in the absence of leadership.

James McGovern: Last Thursday, following months of refusing to discuss future plans with trade unions, local politicians ormost importantlythe work force, NCR in Dundee announced 650 job losses. It did so in the most callous fashion imaginable, assembling the 800 manufacturing staff in a room with a large-screen television, from which the chief executive announced via video link from America that 650 of them had been made redundant. Will the Prime Minister join me in reassuring the people of Dundee that we will do everything that we can to help them? Will he meet me to discuss how we can reassure the people of Dundee of the Government's commitment to full employment and high-quality jobs, including the 700 NCR jobs that remain in Dundee?

Tony Blair: I sympathise fully with those who will lose their jobs as a result of the decision by the company. I know that the Scottish Executive's Partnership Action for Continuing Employment has stepped in to try to ensure that other work is made available for those who are, sadly, going to be made redundant. It is also important that we safeguard the company's position in other parts of Scotland. I would certainly be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what we can do. As a result of different measures taken over the past few years by the Government on a UK-wide basis and by the Scottish Executive, we now have very good schemes that go into effect immediately when redundancies are announced and that often help people to get alternative employment. It is important that we try to ensure that this operates in the particular circumstances to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention.

Andrew Pelling: Will the Prime Minister concede that an unintended consequence of the Government's policy in the middle east has been to advance the interests of the Shi'ites at the expense of the Sunnis?

Tony Blair: No; unsurprisingly, I do not accept that. The most important thing that we have done is to set the principlewhich the Iraqi people demonstrated by voting in the election for a non-sectarian Governmentthat the vast majority of people would prefer to live in peace, whatever their religious or ethnic background.
	I raised this issue particularly when I was visiting British troops in Basra before Christmas. I am pleased to say that the operation that they are conducting in Basra is going well and is successful, and their clear view is that those who are creating the trouble are a minority, and that the vast majority, whether Shi'a or Sunni, want to live in peace together. I had a conversation the other day with the Vice-President of Iraq, who is one of the main leaders of the Sunni community, and he made the same point. We should never fall for the extremists' propaganda that says that the majority want what they offer. Actually, the majority of people, in whatever part of the world, prefer to live and raise their families in peace and prosperity, and to treat their neighbours, of whatever race or whatever background, with some semblance of decency.

Paul Flynn: Mohammad Daud, the provincial governor of Helmand province, was principally responsible for the ceasefire in Musa Qala, which brought peace to that area and has saved lives. He was singled out by the Defence Secretary as, unlike other provincial governors, a man of integrity who certainly was not corrupt. Last month he was sacked. Will the Prime Minister make representations for his reinstatement?

Tony Blair: I must say to my hon. Friend that Mohammad Daud's successor shares exactly the same strategy for Helmand province. I want to pick up on one implication of my hon. Friend's comments. What British troops are doing down in Helmand province is remarkable; tragically, we have again had to remember those who have fallen in the service of their country. They fell fighting the Taliban, however, and that fight is having huge success in the south of that country. Every time that they are able to inflict such losses on the Taliban, reconstruction and redevelopment can proceed. The new governor of the province is helping very much with that. Despite all the challenges and difficulties, there are real reasons for optimism about what we are doing in Afghanistan. The alternative was seen clearly a few months back, when the Taliban executed a teacher in front of a class for teaching girls in school. Those are the two alternative futures for the country, and I know which side we should be on.

David Cameron: Yesterday, it emerged that the Department for Education and Skills had issued guidance that will make it more difficult for head teachers to enforce school uniform policies. I know that the Prime Minister and I agree about the importance of school freedom and professional responsibility. I have one simple question, which requires a simple answer: will he scrap this unnecessary and wrong piece of central guidance?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman probably has not seen the letter already issued by the Minister for Schools at the Department for Education and Skills making it absolutely clear that we support fully the right of schools to enforce their school uniform rules.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Siobhain McDonagh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of only having entered their second term since opening, the two new city academies in my constituency, St. Mark's and Harris Merton, will be oversubscribed next year, such is the support of local parents and the community? Will he join me in congratulating the parents, teachers and staff at that school, and their enlightened sponsors, the Church of England and Lord Harris of Peckham?

Tony Blair: I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating both the schools and sponsors who have put so much hard work into the city academy programme. In light of some of the publicity about the new school building programme, building schools for the future, let me say that, since 1997, 800 new schools have been built around the country. Those new or completely refurbished schools have made an enormous difference to what is happening in our country. In addition, more than 1,600 new science labs, better classrooms for more than 4,000 schools, hundreds of new sports halls and thousands of new computers and electronic whiteboards have been provided. As the results show, a revolution is going on in our schools at the moment, of which the city academy programme is an important part, and it is delivering quality education to some of the poorest kids in our country.

James Arbuthnot: I echo the tribute that the Prime Minister has been paying today to British troops. I was delighted to hear on Friday of his support for a substantial increase in defence spending. Has he ensured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with him?

Tony Blair: It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement of the extra defence spending a few years ago in the comprehensive spending review that meant that defence spending has been rising for the first time in years. In the 10 years before we came to office, there was a cut of something like a third. MoreoverI am grateful for the opportunity to point this outif the additional sums for Iraq and Afghanistan are included, we have been holding defence spending constant as a proportion of our national income in what is, of course, a vastly growing economy. That compares with, again, a cut of about a third in the years before we came to power. I agree that we have far more to do, but, thank goodness, our record is a lot better than that of the last Government.

Ann McKechin: Earlier this week the leader of the Scottish National party suggested that the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections would constitute a vote for a referendum on independence. Given that not a single constituent has ever contacted me to request such a referendum, does my right hon. Friend agree that people of Scotland have much more serious issues with which they wish this Government to deal?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. Of course issues such as crime, health, education and the state of the economy are immensely important to the people in Scotland who will vote in the forthcoming elections. As she says, however, the point is that the Scottish National party has now put on the agenda its desire for independence for Scotland and a referendum to achieve it. That would not only have a disastrous effect on the Scottish economy, but waste the enormous benefit that the Union has brought to England and Scotland over the past few years.
	Surely the modern way forward for a country such as ours is devolution, with a Scottish Parliament to deal with issues that should be dealt with solely in Scotland, and a UK-wide arrangement enabling us to deal with issues such as the economy, security and defence with which we need to deal together. That is why it is so important for us to reject the option of independence.

Jeremy Wright: Following yesterday's television interview with the Prime Minister's former spin doctor Lance Price, will the Prime Minister confirm that he has not called the Chancellor of the Exchequer psychologically flawed?

Tony Blair: I certainly do confirm that, yes.

Kitty Ussher: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating police in Burnley on their recent success in reducing crime, which last year alone was down by 6 per cent. in Lancashire as a whole? Does he think that that is due in any way to the increase in police numbers, which have risen by 336 in Lancashire since 1997? Will he personally guarantee not to jeopardise that investment through unfunded and irresponsible tax cuts in the future?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to invest in our police services. The work that has been done in Lancashire is remarkable: it has had an excellent record over the past few years. Given all the criticism of the Home Office, it is worth pointing out that crime has fallen, not risen, over the past 10 years. That contrasts with the record of the Conservatives, who doubled crime and, in the last few years before we came to office, cut the number of police. We have record numbers of police officers, we have police and community support officers, and we have falling crime.

Michael Penning: If the Prime Minister were lucky enough to come to Hemel Hempstead, he would see a community rebuilding itself after the terrible Buncefield explosions that took place a year ago. He would also have an opportunity to visit Hemel Hempstead general hospital and the acute facilities that treated all the injured people. There was huge investment in the hospital before the Government came to power, and, to be fair, there has been investment since. However, that investment is being thrown down the drain. The award-winning birth unit has been closed, the cardiac unit is being closed, the accident and emergency unit is being closed and the intensive care unit is being closed. I could go on. In fact, the whole hospital is being closed, although

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tony Blair: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to accept, as a result of the desire to centralise specialist services at Watford there will be far better specialist care for patients. The plan that he has described has been presented by child care clinicians precisely because they believe that it will help to provide better specialist services for people. He is, however, right to say that there has been massive additional investment in his area. That is why there are more nurses, more doctors and shortening waiting times.

Andrew Slaughter: I feel sure that my right hon. Friend would like to join me in congratulating Phoenix high school in my constituency, which last week was named as the most improved secondary school in England. However, is he aware that Tory councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham, who continually call for Phoenix to close, are now seeking to close the much improving Hurlingham and Chelsea school? Can he do anything to stop that?

Tony Blair: Of course, such decisions are taken locally but I am sure that the strong campaign launched by my hon. Friend will have an impact, because where schools are improving dramatically we want to keep them improving.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that the new primary care trust for Norfolk and Norwich started operations with a 50 million deficit, resulting in the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency having actively to delay routine operations for 200 patients? What does he say to those constituents of mine who are waiting in pain, and in particular to Mr. Ben Mullarkey of Dersingham, who had to pay to have his hip replacement done in France? Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he said that we had 24 hours to save the NHS?

Tony Blair: I understand the difficulties that have been caused in the hon. Gentleman's area as that particular trust comes back into financial balance. However, it is worth pointing out that, at the same time as the trust is facing those financial difficulties, over the past few years in his local area the number of people waiting for more than 26 weeks for in-patient treatment has fallen from 31,000 to 16. Only one patient in the whole of his strategic health authority is waiting for more than 13 weeks for a first out-patient appointment, and there has been dramatic improvement in both cancer and cardiac care. I understand the problems being faced as the trust comes back into financial balance, but let us be clear that once that happens we will be able to use the additional capacity that we have provided and bring those waiting times down further. Our desire is to get to the end of 2008 with an 18-week combined in-patient and out-patient waiting period. That would be a dramatic improvement.

Fiona Mactaggart: The educational improvements that the Prime Minister has referred to have led Britain to improve its position in the international education league tables, but we still languish at No. 18 in the OECD league tables for skills. What does the Prime Minister plan to do to improve the skill levels of youngsters in this country?

Tony Blair: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right, and the two things that will be important are, first, the additional investment in schools which will run into hundreds of millions of pounds in the next few years, and also that we are moving to the new system of vocational education which will allow a far better choice for youngsters at the age of 14 to opt for a high-quality stream of vocational education. That is what we need to do. We have very much focused on lifting academic standards and there has been considerable success on that, although there is lots more to do. We now need to have the same focus on vocational education, and the combination of the money and the reform over the next few years should deliver results.

Danny Alexander: The Prime Minister will be aware of the hugely successful launch of Highland 2007 in Inverness on Friday, which demonstrated the renewed confidence and optimism in the region. In the year that we celebrate the culture, heritage and future of the highlands, will the Prime Minister ensure that his Government pursue policies that not only help to tackle the particular disadvantages faced by Britain's most dispersed and remote region, but promote awareness of the contribution that the highlands has made to the UK over the years?

Tony Blair: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. The highlands has made an enormous contribution to the whole of the United Kingdom, and one of the reasons why we have special help and provision and we organise that in a way that allows the whole of the UK to support the highlands is that we recognise that it is far more sparsely populated than other areas and therefore particular help is needed for local services. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue the investment to make sure that the highlands carries on playing the vital role that it does in terms of the future of Scotland and also the whole of the UK.

Martin Linton: Is the Prime Minister as appalled as I am by the decision of Conservative councillors in Wandsworth to close Battersea arts centre and to try to blame Government grants even though Wandsworth is in no danger of being capped and has the lowest council tax in the country? [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] It also has huge reserves [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is more.

Martin Linton: It also gets excellent value from its 100,000 grant to Battersea arts centre, having just given [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend that Battersea arts centre does a fantastic job. They should do everything that they can to keep it open, and they should keep it open.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister and his Government are about to abolish the right to elect jury trial in serious fraud cases. Will he retain the right to jury trial for political corruption, such as the selling of honours?

Tony Blair: The proposals that we have simply relate to fraud trials in the way that we have described. I doubt whether the Scottish National party will support those proposals, but it should, because they will free up[Hon. Members: He is Plaid Cymru.] Let me explain exactly why. They will free up money that we desperately need to make sure that we have both the police and the criminal justice system that allows criminals to be caught and punished.

Charlotte Atkins: Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government continue to support a viable network of post offices, and that the Post Office card account on which so many pensioners depend has a successor?

Tony Blair: Yes, that is precisely the reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the Government have decided that we will continue with the new account after 2010. That, incidentally, is in addition to the 2 billion of extra support for post offices, particularly rural post offices. We all know the reasons why post offices face a great deal of challenge and difficulty at the momentbecause of the changing way that people are handling their accountsbut I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything that we can to make sure we preserve as many of them as possible, that we make the investment and that we keep the account going.

Robert Walter: A few minutes ago, in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about criminal records exchange, the Prime Minister said that before 2006 there was no system across Europe for the exchange of criminal records. Can he explain why, in 2001, the Government negotiated a protocol to the 1959 Council of Europe convention on the exchange of records, but have neither ratified nor implemented that protocol? So before 2006, it would have been possible to exchange those records.

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken about that. The fact is that there was no proper system prior to 2005 and the decision of the European Council. If I may, I will point this out to him: it was only because we were able to work with other European partners that we managed to get agreement to implement a new system. That new system is in place, and for the first time we have proper records that we can implement properly and make sure that we monitor properly. That is the change that has been brought about in the last year.

Anne Main: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: After the statement.

Defence Training Review

Des Browne: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the defence training review rationalisation programme. Before I do so, however, I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending their condolences to the friends, family and colleagues of Marine Thomas Curry, Lance Corporal Mathew Ford and Kingsman Alexander Green, who were killed in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq over the weekend and earlier this week. I pay tribute to their bravery, professionalism and courage. No words can express my admiration for our armed forces and the work that they do daily in the most difficult and challenging of circumstances.
	In November 2004, the Ministry of Defence issued invitations to negotiate for two contractual packages under the defence training review rationalisation programme. The programme is a large and complex public-private partnership project that seeks to transform the way in which we deliver six types of specialist training on a defence-wide basis to support better the future needs of the armed forces.
	All bidders have put in strong bids, and I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House, who have expressed such strong support for relevant bids. I can now report that, following a detailed evaluation process, the bids from the Metrix consortium have been judged to offer the best technical and prospective value-for-money solutions to the defence training review requirement for both packages 1 and 2. As a result, we are appointing Metrix as preferred bidder for package 1 and provisional preferred bidder for package 2. Metrix has won each package independently and separately, and we now plan to take forward negotiations with the consortium.
	On 18 December, the MC3 consortium submitted an unsolicited last minute alternative proposal for package 1. That proposal was considered, but was quickly discounted as failing to meet the requirements of the invitation to negotiate. As an unsolicited proposal it was also outside the rules of the competition.
	I must emphasise that identifying the best training solution for defence has been the primary consideration. The evaluation has involved some 200 subject matter experts. The training element was overseen by Professor Molyneux, an independent expert in modern training technology and e-learning.
	For package 1 we are confident that we have a broadly affordable solution that will deliver modern and efficient aeronautical engineering, electro-mechanical engineering and communications and information systems training. Currently, that is delivered at nine locations, involving some 3,500 military and civilian staff providing instruction to 6,500 defence trainees at any one time. Over a five-year transition period starting in late 2008, Metrix proposes to rationalise the estate, initially on to two major sites, St. Athan and HMS Sultan. Marine engineering training will remain at HMS Sultan until 2017, when that too will relocate to St. Athan. The St. Athan site will be largely a new-build facility.
	A small enclave will, however, be retained at Bordon for vehicle recovery training, and some communications training will continue to be delivered at HMS Collingwood. Overall, that will have a varying impact across nine sites: Arborfield, Bordon, Blandford, HMS Collingwood, Cosford, RAF Cranwell, RAF Digby, HMS Sultan and, of course, St. Athan.
	Package 2 is more complex. It aims to provide training for logistics and personnel administration, police and guarding, security, languages, intelligence and photography. Currently, that is delivered at 18 locations across the United Kingdom, involving some 2,900 military and civilian staff, and 4,500 trainees.
	The evaluation process identified Metrix as a clear winner for package 2, but we have more work to do to resolve the outstanding issues to address a significant affordability gap and to explore possible synergies with package 1, which should deliver improved value for money across the programme as a whole. Until we have resolved those issues with the bidder we cannot confirm the final approach that the MOD will take, including whether all, or part of, package 2 goes forward. However, it is only right that we inform the losing bidder that it has been unsuccessful.
	Starting in late 2008, the current Metrix proposals would again see rationalisation to St. Athan over a five-year period. However, all training currently undertaken at Leconfield, Wethersfield and a number of smaller federated units would remain at those sites, as would the majority of training currently delivered at Chicksands.
	Together, these proposals will embrace the very best training methods available today, in an environment designed for military learning. Full advantage will be taken of the latest technology for simulators and distributed learning solutions. The proposals will deliver top-grade single living accommodation for all ranks, with single en-suite rooms for many. New recreational and sports facilities will enhance the quality of life for our trainees, staff and their families.
	I take the implications of the change programme for our people very seriously. The impact is likely to be significant for civilian staff required to transfer to the new partner. They will, of course, be protected in full accordance with the TUPE regulations, which cover the transfer of undertakings. However, some redundancies following transfer cannot be ruled out, and should any occur, they will be taken forward sensitively and in full consultation with trade unions and staff.
	I do not underestimate how disappointed some hon. Members and their constituents will be where we are seeking to withdraw training establishments. That will be most keenly felt in the west midlands at Cosford, and in North Dorset at Blandford. While not wishing to pre-empt any specific decisions, I am pleased to say that there are no plans to close either site. The current training at each will continue until 2011, and the Department is exploring a number of proposals for the potential future defence use of both Cosford and Blandford. Those proposals will be announced, subject to the normal review and approvals processes, but a military presence is expected to remain at both sites in the future. At Cosford, Metrix proposes building a learning resource centre and developing a national training research and development support centre. In addition, it will work with the Department to examine how the programme might support the establishment of the national manufacturing skills academy.
	It has been suggested that the Ministry of Defence has a conflict of interest by virtue of its minority shareholding in QinetiQ, which is part of the Metrix consortium. That was recognised at the outset. Frankly, it is not unusual for QinetiQ to be a member of a consortium bidding for MOD work, or to be a potential beneficiary as a subcontractor. Therefore, we have put in place stringent steps to separate the roles of customer and owner in relation to QinetiQ. Those steps were made plain in the prospectus to investors when QinetiQ was floated on the stock market last year, and a copy was placed at the time in the Library. I am content that the DTR evaluation process did not take improper account of the QinetiQ shareholding.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and I have written today to all those hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by this announcement, with details of the changes as set out in the winning bidders' current proposals. As the way forward becomes clearer, I will update the House. I have also made available in the Library a number of key documents, including the invitations to negotiate and Professor Molyneux's letter validating the evaluation process.
	I conclude by emphasising again that the bids from the Metrix consortium offered the best technical and value-for-money solutions to meet the future needs of defence specialist training. As I stated earlier, we now plan to take forward negotiations over the coming months with the Metrix consortium. This remains an extremely complex public-private partnership programme and a number of significant issues remain to be resolved, particularly over the proposals for package 2. I do not plan to make any further announcements until that work has been completed.

Liam Fox: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. May I, too, begin by paying tribute on behalf of the Opposition to the servicemen who lost their lives recently? Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of Thomas Curry, Mathew Ford and Alexander Green.
	I should also like to thank those of my colleagues who have argued so forcefully for the facilities in their areas. I refer in particular to my hon. Friends the Members for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne), for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and for Gosport (Peter Viggers), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). All their constituents will be affected by the proposed changes.
	On the positive side, it would be good to have high-quality training, and a high-quality training establishment that might act as an aid to recruitment in the future, especially given that demographics will not be on our side. Moreover, at a time when we are celebrating the Union in this country, it is also a positive to see Wales playing a full part in the future of our armed forces. That will send the strong message to those who want to break up the UK that far more unites us than divides us. The statement will also be regarded as a positive opportunity for the academic capabilities of the west and south-west of England, not least among which are the excellent technical skills offered by the academic institutions of Bristol and Bath.
	However, the statement is remarkable for its very opaque nature, and for what it does not tell us. Exactly why did the Metrix bid win? What were the key decisive factors that made it the preferred choice? Will the Secretary of State give us an idea of the number of redundancies that the MOD has assessed to be likely as a result of this decision? What type of alternative defence use might be envisaged for Cosford and Blandford, and when might those employed there get further details?
	Perhaps most worrying are the financial elements of the deal. Exactly how much will the proposals cost? There was nothing in the statement to tell us that. Has the Chancellor agreed to underwrite the full cost of the projects? At a time of overstretch in the armed forces, a tight defence budget and an even tighter spending round in prospect, will the proposals be financed through a growth in the defence budgetthat is, with new money? At a time of inadequate service accommodation and mothballing ships, and when there are capability gaps, any further reduction in front-line budgets would be wholly unacceptable.
	Of particular concern are the terms used by the Secretary of State. He says, We are confident that we have a broadly affordable solution. It seems to me that a solution is either affordable or not. What does broadly affordable mean? When he says that we have to address a significant affordability gap, what sort of gap are we talking about? What sort of money does the Secretary of State think that that gap involves? As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, those terms must mean something to him. The House, the country and all those affected by the changes have a right to see some numbers put on that vague terminology.
	We all want to see quality training, but I am afraid that the statement raises far more questions than it provides answers.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the obvious positive advantages that this modernisation of training for our armed forces can deliver. I agree that our ability to do that on the appropriate site, regardless of where in the United Kingdom it is, is a cause for celebration, and a celebration of the Union.
	The hon. Gentleman asks for figures. He will excuse me, but considerable negotiations have still to take place with the consortium that has been judged against the evaluation process as providing both the best technical solution and the best value-for-money solution. I said that I had put significant details about that process in the Library, so the House will forgive me if I invite Members to read that information, as it is in the public domain, in the Library.
	The through-life cost of the programme is about 16 billion over 25 years, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept is a significant investment in the training of our armed forces. I am certain that investment would not have been possible within the trend of defence expenditure that we inherited, and it is consistent with our ability to increase spending on the armed forces and our ambition to be able to invest more, and to increase our spending on them in the future.
	As for affordability, the purpose of making the statement at this time was to announce the outcome of the competition to identify a preferred bidder. In relation to both packages, significant detailed negotiation has still to take place with the preferred bidder, once identified. The competition has come to a close, so it is appropriate that there is a transparent and obvious announcement of who was judgedagainst the transparent criteria of the competitionthe winner. Challenging and complex negotiations have to take place, about which there has to be a degree of commercial confidentiality. In relation to package 1, I am satisfied that we shall be able to conclude those negotiations, because the affordability of the package is broadly within the parameters that we set for ourselves.
	There are significant affordability challenges for the second package. However, because the same consortium won each competition independently of the other, there are opportunities for synergy and savings that have to be explored. At the end of that process a decision will have to be made, but a decision may need to be made at some stage about an alternative way of providing training for the second part of the package. I make no bones about that; I am perfectly clear about it.

John Smith: This is a great, great day for Wales, and it will be remembered for a long time. This is good news not only for my constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan, in particular the work force at St. Athan, but also for the south Wales economy. Most importantly, this is good news for Her Majesty's armed forces and the training that they need for the 21st century.
	Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to all those who worked hard putting the bid together and supporting it? I am thinking in particular of Mike Hayle of Metrix, parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), my colleague Jane Hutt and Mr. David Swallow in the Welsh Assembly, and last but not least, readers of the  South Wales Echo, who supported the campaign from day one. [Hon. Members: This is a speech!] Finally

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that the purpose of the question session is to put questions to the Minister. Perhaps the Minister could reply briefly.

Des Browne: I have been invited to pay tribute to peopleand the first people I want to pay tribute to are those who presently provide the training for our armed forces. That training is working well at the moment. However, they recognise, as we recognise, that we must modernise and adapt it to meet the needs of the future, particularly in relation to tri-service deployment. I am unstinting in my praise of all those, including my hon. Friend, who have so consistently and appropriately lobbied for their constituents' interests. In this case, the best indicative result at this stage of the process for the delivery of the training needs of the armed forces happens to be in the Metrix bid. To the extent that they have been able to deliver that opportunity of a solution, those involved with that bid are to be congratulated, but no more than others who took part in the process.

Bob Russell: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement, and I join him in paying tribute to the three members of Her Majesty's armed forces who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last few days. Yesterday, I attended a thanksgiving service for 16th Air Assault Brigade, which has recently returned from Afghanistan; the roll of honour ran into double figures.
	The decision is clearly good news for south Wales, but bad news for just about every other part of Britain where military training takes place. It is good news for companies that are thriving on the fruits of privatisation, but bad news for the dedicated, publicly employed training professionals who will either lose their jobs or have to leave the public sector. It is good news for the Ministry of Defence, because it can now offload the costly mega-million white elephant that was built in the wrong place for a purpose that is not wanted.
	This is yet another example of the Government's fixation with privatisation

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to interrupt an hon. Gentleman, but questions must be put. This is not an opportunity for a statement, whether from the Front Bench or not. If the hon. Gentleman can rephrase what he has to say into a question, I can accept that.

Bob Russell: In the wider interests of Britain's armed forces, is this a privatisation too far? Will the Minister say whether any other MOD privatisations are being considered?

Des Browne: The bidder that has been successful in this competition has proven capabilities, which were confirmed during the evaluation process. That process was technically demanding and adjudicated to the highest standards to deliver training. There is no question but that, despite the fact that we start at a high level of training for our armed forces, this investment and opportunity, when delivered, will improve training for them. The test of that is whether there is support from the chiefs of staff, and there is. The PPP is the chosen procurement method in this case because it brings private sector management expertise, which brings added value, and the ability to have significant capital investment in the estate in a short time, which would have been unaffordable otherwise. Not only that, but it gives the Department the flexibility to increase or decrease the student throughput, with the partner who is involved, over the period of the contract. As far as my Department is concerned, with signed PPP contracts we have a good record in terms not only of value and delivering in time, but of delivering what those who charge us with the responsibility of delivering these services want for our forces.

Don Touhig: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will see a world-class training facility at St. Athan, which will greatly benefit Britain's armed forces. That must be the only criterion for taking this decision: what is best for the training needs of Britain's armed forces? His announcement means that I will achieve some of my long-held ambitions: to see the defence footprint in Wales greatly increased, to see large numbers of highly skilled jobs created, and to see a boost to our skills base. Will he confirm that private companies will be able to buy into this training facility? That will mean that the entire Welsh economy will have the opportunity to upskill its work force.

Des Browne: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's contribution to the process of identifying the appropriate way of delivering training for the military when he was an Under-Secretary in the Department. Not just as a Member of Parliament for a Welsh constituency, but as a person who has contributed to the progress that has been madealthough there is still much work to be donehe is entitled to take some credit for that. He is quite right to say that the centre of excellence that will grow in St. Athan will not only provide our military forces with the opportunity of tailored training across the whole range of phases 2 and 3, but will generate opportunities for the Welsh economy and for skills in Wales itself.

James Arbuthnot: I congratulate Metrix and St. Athan on winning the bid. As that result means that Bordon in my constituency will lose the School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, will the Ministry of Defence work closely with the local community to ensure that the release of MOD land is managed in such a way as to make it a positive experience for Bordon as well as for the MOD?

Des Browne: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive contribution to the process. He realised that there was always a possibility that a facility and opportunities that were there for his constituents in Bordon would be removed, depending on the decision that was made. I reassure him that, almost from the moment that I sit down after the statement and leave the Chamber, we will start to engage with those communities, and with him, where that is appropriate, to ensure that the best advantage is taken of the opportunities that will be created. Over time, this move will provide a range of opportunities for the development of the area. We need to ensure that those opportunities are consistent with the community's plans for their area and its growth.

Rob Marris: Naturally, I am disappointed by my right hon. Friend's statement, as Cosford is less than 10 miles from my constituency. The people of the west midlands will be bitterly disappointed as well. My right hon. Friend has mentioned on a number of occasions the rigours of the evaluation procedures. Will he tell me on what date the two packages were put to the Treasury for its evaluation and on what date the Treasury gave its evaluation of those two main proposals?

Des Browne: I cannot off the top of my head remember the specific dates. There has been continuous communication between our Department and the Treasury about this proposal, as one would expect. I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment in relation to Cosford and I commend himas I will no doubt repeatedly commend others who catch your eye, Mr. Speakerfor his contribution and his advocacy for his community. Looking to the future, Cosford is well placed as a highly flexible defence site. Although I am not in a position today to give more detailed information than what I specifically included in the statement, I can reassure my hon. Friend that in relation to the totality of the opportunities that that site offers, it is our intention that Cosford will continue to make a significant contribution to our total defence services.

Peter Viggers: What weight has been given to personnel issues? Is the Secretary of State aware that for decades there has been a sensible focusing of training and the basing of ships in the Portsmouth and Gosport area, with the result that many service personnelnaval personnelhave made their homes in south Hampshire? A move to south Wales for training purposes will have a devastating effect on their domestic arrangements, and no doubt on the retention of skilled and trained men. Is the Secretary of State aware that, with the move of many surface ships into mothballs, with a threat over the premier port, Portsmouth, and now with this announcement, the Government will have to work very hard to avoid the conclusion that they do not understand the importance of sea power and do not respect the traditions of the servicethe Royal Navy and its personnel?

Des Browne: The fact that we are in the middle of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, peacetime warship building programmes that this country has seen is an indication of the Government's commitment to our Navy. [Hon. Members: How many ships?] Hon. Members need to go through the same process as I have gone through over the past several months, during which Chiefs of the Defence Staff have repeatedly explained to me how the capability of the platforms that we now use is much better and greater than it was even a decade ago. It is now redundant to count platforms to determine the delivery of military effect. Hon. Members need to understand the effect of the significant investment that we are making in not only ships, but warplanes and other equipment.
	I am conscious that today's announcement will have an effect on those who work for us on not only the civil side, but the military side, to provide training. There is no plan to close HMS Sultan in the near future. As I said, the earliest move will not take place before 2011 and electro-mechanical engineering training will remain there until 2017. That will give us the opportunity to ensure that we can engage with people to understand their personal ambitions. We will engage with them in such a way that we can respond to them and make the best use of them. Hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to have shared the belief that the centralisation of the training and the building of a centre of excellence would bring about a benefit. Some people were always going to be presented with the choice of moving, or moving on.

Hywel Francis: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and, as Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, thank him for the fair and transparent way in which the process has been undertaken. I also thank all members of political parties throughout Wales who supported the bid in a non-sectarian way. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the institutions of further and higher education in Wales that have supported the bid and made it excellent?

Des Browne: All those who have been involved in supporting, planning and making the bids have behaved entirely appropriately and are to be congratulated on their approach. In a sense, the congratulations that Metrix and Wales deserve arise from the fact that they have emerged as the winners. I cannot repeat often enough that the process was subjected to the most rigorous technical assessment and an assessment of value for money. The winners in the competition came out on top for both packages and in both criteria.

Hywel Williams: In the negotiations on the programme, what regard was taken of the Welsh Assembly Government's Wales spatial plan? How will the economic effects of this massive investment be extended beyond Vale of Glamorgan, Cardiff and parts of the valleys?

Des Browne: There was no negotiation or discussion with anyone outside the parameters of the competition itself. We are now entering a phase in which such negotiations and discussions can take place. The hon. Gentleman clearly recognises the possible value to the whole of Wales of today's announcement, and he is right to do so. However, he might want to point out to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), his leader, that it was inappropriate for him to sign an early-day motion in November opposing the entire defence training review programme. The hon. Gentlemen's colleagues in the Welsh Assembly might now allow some of our armed forces the opportunity to enter Welsh schools, because if they had their way such a thing would be banned.

Jim Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that many people in the west midlands will be disappointed by the decision, to say the least. Having said that, the Secretary of State has given us a hint about several proposals for RAF Cosford. Will he consider meeting a small delegation of west midlands Members, of which I am the chair, to discuss any future plans?

Des Browne: I cannot make it any clearer that I do not anticipate that Cosford will be anything other than well placed for future opportunities. I have described some of them, and there might be others that people might know or speculate about, although I am not in a position to do that. Either the Under-Secretary who has day-to-day responsibility for this area of policy or I will be only too happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and other Members from his area to discuss those opportunities to the extent to which they can be discussed. I meant to make the point earlier that all the meetings that I had and all the advocacy of hon. Members, except when they took place on a bilateral basis, were distinguished by their cross-party nature.

Mark Pritchard: It is clear that defence training at RAF Cosford will end by 2011. Despite the Secretary of State's comments, we have heard no details, definitive statement or guarantee about the type of defence sector work that Cosford might expect. In his statement, he said that his Department was exploring a number of proposals for the potential future defence use, but even those future proposals must go through an approval process. There is thus no guarantee that Metrix, which might have a different view from the Ministry of Defence, will come forward with a learning resource centre, a national training research and development support centre, or, indeed, the national manufacturing skills academy. Will the Secretary of State assure the workers who are watching us live that proposals will be worked up in detail? Will he give those workers details and a guarantee that they will have a bright future, rather than giving us a bland statement that Cosford will have some sort of defence future?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has approached this difficult issue for him and his constituents entirely appropriately and in a genuine cross-party spirit. He has been a consistent advocate for the best interests of his constituents and Cosford. I understand that he is disappointed, but, knowing him, I expect that he will do exactly what his question suggests he will do: gird his loins and start looking for assurances to the extent that he can get them about plans for the best use of Cosford, which could give rise to growth in certain parts of his local community. I, too, am disappointed that the timing is such that I cannot give him any more certainty from the Dispatch Box than that which was in the words that I have carefully used in my statement and my responses to hon. Members' questions. I expect that the path between his office and my Department will become well worn over the weeks and months to come. He can rest assured that we will work with him, his constituents and the work force to ensure that they get the best possible outcome.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I recognise the huge economic benefits that will accrue to Wales from today's decision regarding the new centre of excellence at St. Athan. Prior to my right hon. Friend's visit to Portsmouth tomorrow, will he take account, as part of the naval base review, of the enormous economic benefit that Portsmouth naval base brings to my area, where we hope that we can have as favourable an outcome in the future as Wales has had today?

Des Browne: During last week's Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister enumerated the benefits that the naval base at Portsmouth brings to the area, of which I am conscious. The review is necessary for the reasons that were set out when it was announced. It will continue and recommendations will be made to me. Until such a time as those whom I have charged with responsibility for carrying out the review feel that they are in a position to report to me, I will leave them to get on with the job. I simply say to my hon. Friendno doubt I will have plenty of opportunities to repeat this tomorrow when I visit Portsmouththat the importance of the naval base to the local community and the contribution that it makes to the support of our armed forces, especially the Navy, are not lost on me.

Robert Key: Please will the Secretary of State clarify his enigmatic reference to housing? He said that there will be new build for single accommodation, but in the next sentence he referred to benefits to families from recreational accommodation. Will any married quarters be provided, and who will procure, manage and maintain them?

Des Browne: There will be married quarters accommodation. That is part of the package, and the detail of how that is to be delivered and managed will be worked out in the detailed negotiations.

Julie Morgan: I welcome the statement, and the news will be a huge boost to south Wales, Cardiff and my constituency of Cardiff, North. Will consideration be given to whether special measures can be put in place to help those aircraft maintenance specialists who lost their jobs in the running down of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency at St. Athan? Some of my constituents were in that position. Will there be any special measures that will help them to retrain as instructors in the new facility, as they have the skills that will be needed?

Des Browne: With respect to my hon. Friend, I am not in a position to deal with the detail of the transferability of any specific skills so that we can meet other demands, in relation to the many aspects of engineering training that will be necessary. I was born and brought up in west Scotland, and I represent and have lived in a constituency that has a long history of engineering. Indeed, I have in my family a chief engineer in the merchant navy. My instinct suggests that it is just the sort of people who have those basic skills who the successful bidder will be looking for to deliver the training needed. I am absolutely certain that opportunities will be found to enable people with those basic skills to do the necessary retraining to allow them to take advantage of jobs.

Annette Brooke: Under the circumstances, it is important that the Secretary of State and his Department consider future defence uses for Blandford. I understand that 75 million has been spent at the college there in the past few years. Will he give every assurance that the facilities will be retained for the greater good of the local community?

Des Browne: The Metrix bid proposes to move the training currently delivered at the Royal School of Signals in Blandford to St. Athan by the end of the transition phase, but, again, no significant moves are currently anticipated before 2011. The RSS is, of course, only one element of the activities undertaken by the Royal Corps of Signals in the camp. We are still reviewing the implications for the headquarters of the signal officer in chief and the other units, including the research and development facilities on the site.

Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State take the first opportunity to ensure that strong, enduring links are built between St. Athan and the universities of Cardiff, Swansea, and Wales, Newport, and particularly that links are built with the defence industries in Newport, such as EADS and International Rectifier? It is understandable that there is disappointment in other parts of the country, but does he agree that this is probably the first time that Wales has had its first share of defence jobs, and can he assure Members

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on his third supplementary question.

Des Browne: It is logical that the opportunity for such significant investment, and for a centre of excellence for training, should generate a demand for links with all establishments of further and higher education in the area. The things that my hon. Friend suggests I should encourage will happen naturally in any event.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Secretary of State accept that the anguish and the dashed hopes caused by the statement today will be added to by the lack of detail? When will we have an idea of precisely what will happen at Cosford, and of how many people are likely to be given jobs there? Will he come to the House within the next year and tell us that?

Des Browne: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that the only answer that I can give at the moment is that I will do what he suggests as early as I can; I recognise how urgent the matter is. My expectation is that both my Department and the relevant services should engage immediately with the people who are affected by the decision, to ensure that what will happen in the future, and the opportunities for the future, are shared with them, to the extent that that is known, as we go along.

Chris Bryant: There will be an enormously warm reception for the announcement in my constituency and across south Walesindeed, across the whole of Walesnot least because so many young people in my constituency are in the armed forces and want the best training possible. Is not the most important part of today's announcement the fact that we are talking about a 16 billion investment in training, so that our armed forces have what they deserve and needthe most advanced, most sophisticated, highest-tech training in the world?

Des Browne: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am pleased to announce that we will be able to make that significant investment, but I am also conscious that I am charged with the responsibility of ensuring that we actually deliver, against the very high standards that we have set for training for the armed forces. We recognise that any announcement of this nature, stretching so far into the future, has to continue to be affordable. We cannot have a scheme that starts off promising a lot, but that fails to deliver in the later years because it was not sustainable. I need to make sure that, in the negotiations, we ensure sustainability.

Douglas Hogg: RAF Cranwell and RAF Digby are in my constituency, and my constituents work at both bases. Will the Secretary of State give the House the precise implications for those two bases? With regard to the letter that he mentioned, of which I have not yet received a copy, will he please put a copy on the board within an hour?

Des Browne: I think that it will be possible for me to put a copy of the letter on the board within an hour. I know that those letters were, on my instruction, being drafted. They could not, of course, be given out before the statement was made. The aerial erector school at RAF Digby is intended to move to St. Athan, and that will affect fewer than 20 staff. The station's core task as the joint services' signal wing will remain unchanged. As for RAF Cranwell, all aeronautical and communications engineering training will move to the new tri-service defence training campus in St. Athan in south Wales under package 1. Under package 2, a small element of the Defence College of Logistics and Personnel Administration will transfer, too, and that will affect fewer than 100 staff. As I say, the college's core initial officer training task will remain unchanged, but I will ensure that the letter gets to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the time scale that he suggests.

Michael Gove: The Minister has in the past been kind enough to acknowledge the superb work done by the leadership team in Deepcut in my constituency, which is the headquarters of the Royal Logistic Corps. He acknowledged in his statement that the future of logistics training was more complex than the move to St. Athan, but can he give my constituents in Deepcut the same assurance that he gives to those who serve in Cosford and Blandford that the site will continue to serve a defence function in future, sine die?

Des Browne: I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I can give him an assurance that we will engage, in the very short term, with the people who are likely to be affected, because the site will of course be affected by the outcome of the continuing negotiations on package 2, and may have to be vacated if the result of those negotiations allows us to deliver the complex package in the way we want. I am grateful to him for recognising that the second package has a degree of complexity that the first does not; in the first package, there is much more synergy between the different elements of training. However, I will ensure that, to the extent possible, he as Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath is kept up to date on developments.

Michael Penning: The Secretary of State knows that my only interest is in what is right for the armed forces; I do not have defence interests in my constituency, although I did serve myself. In today's statement, there is nothing to suggest why Metrix and Wales were chosen. It might be the right decision, but nothing in the statement made public today indicates why it was made. Will the Secretary of State elaborate, in a spirit of openness?

Des Browne: Coming to the House to announce a decision is, in some circumstances, quite restricting. There is a comparatively short period in which to make a statement, and I am trying to stick to that requirement. To supplement the information available to hon. Members, I have placed a significant amount of background information, including the independent verification of technical assessments, in the House of Commons Library. Members can look at that information at their leisure if they wish to satisfy their curiosity or if they wish to be certain that we have been open. A detailed, complex technical assessment of the bids was made against a number of criteria that were set out in the bid processI have made the information to tender available to the House of Commons, tooand on value for money the Metrix bids were the significant winner, which is why they were chosen. We must get down to details and discuss the terms of the contract to see whether those complex services can be delivered.

Robert Walter: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Defence College of Communications and Information Systems is located in Blandford in my constituency. The South West of England Regional Development Agency estimates that the economic footprint of the military presence at Blandford is nearly 300 million a year, so the impact of any move will be significant. The Ministry of Defence has spent nearly 100 million developing the Royal School of Signals at Blandford into a centre of excellence, so I think that the decision is wrong. However, I want assurances about the future of Blandford. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the headquarters of the Royal School of Signals will remain at Blandford, that the signal officer in chief will remain there, and that in future Blandford will be the natural base for all signal regiments when they are located in the United Kingdom?

Des Browne: I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to extract those assurances from me, and he will understand my inability to give them to him. I have already said some quite detailed things about Blandford, and I confirm that we are still reviewing the implications for the headquarters of the signal officer in chief and the other units, including research and development facilities at Blandford. I cannot say any more at this stage.

Lembit �pik: I very much welcome the awarding of the contract to St Athan, which brings a period of uncertainty to an end and will unquestionably benefit the Welsh economy as a whole. Did the Ministry consider keeping the training contract in the public sector, or was the PPP approach the only one to be considered?

Des Browne: I have already indicated in reply to previous questions some of the advantageous characteristics of the PPP, but the most significant advantage was that it allowed us the opportunity to make capital investment that, I candidly admit, we could not otherwise make. After decades of failure to invest in the infrastructure that delivered our training, the scale of investment required was such that it would take decades to secure it if we had used any other method. This way, however, we can secure it in the time scale that I gave in the statement.

Graham Stuart: I am delighted that all training in Leconfield in my constituency will continue, and I congratulate the staff at Europe's premier driver training centre on convincing both bidders of the strengths of their operation. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the 40 million investment that is cited in the documents that he released to the House of Commons Library this morning will be invested in Leconfield, and will not be subject to any Treasury cuts in future?

Des Browne: I do not have any experience, either as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or, indeed, as the Secretary of State for Defence, of the Treasury cuts that people keep talking about. I do have experience, however, of significantly increased real investment in our armed forces, certainly compared with the money spent on them by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. I would be the first to say that we could do more if we invested more, and things that have been highlighted in recent months suggest that there are areas in which we need to invest more. I do not have with me the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but if its detail refers to a planned investment of that nature in his constituency, that is what is planned.

Tobias Ellwood: There is a standing joke in the armed forces about RAF Cosford, Blandford and the garrison at Aldershot: when the barracks finally get a lick of paint people know that the building is going to be sold. There was a major project at St Athan, as 70 million was spent building a massive aircraft hangar to repair Tornadoes and Harriers, only for the entire project to be scrapped a year later. Will we see some better spending by the MOD?

Des Browne: Independent audit and assessment have confirmed that the MOD is getting progressively better at investing public money so that it can deliver for our armed forces. There is no question about that, but no one, whatever party they represent and certainly no one from a party that has governed the country, can be happy with our ability to do so in the past. We must be honest, and accept that in the past we made some significant mistakes. We do not need to enumerate them, as we all know what they are. We are on a path of improvement, and we will continue along that path.

Philip Dunne: The Secretary of State generously congratulated the respective bids on the strong cross-party support they received and, in turn, I congratulate the architects of the Welsh bid, which will be well received in south Wales, not least by the Labour candidates for the Welsh Assembly elections next spring. It is a sad day for Shropshire, and a very sad day for my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm what he said in the statement about the details of the bid, and confirm that new build will be required to provide the training in St Athan, which, of course, was not the case with the Cosford proposal? I should like to take up his offer to explore a national manufacturing skills academy in Cosford, and I am happy to work with Government Members to progress that proposal in the near future.

Des Browne: At the risk of repeating myself, of course we will do all that we can to make sure that the best use is made of the Cosford site, to the advantage of the local community. I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman's question was, but he said that one bid did not require new build while another did so. In any assessment of necessary investment, there is an argument that it is a positive aspect of any bid to provide modern, state-of-the-art accommodation for our people, particularly members of the armed forces who are training. The hon. Gentleman's point therefore cuts both ways.

Points of Order

Anne Main: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I need your guidance because, as you are aware, in many constituencies, including my own, health issues are paramount. The loss of the proposed super-hospital for Hatfield has been very hard for us, particularly as before the election the Secretary of State for Health visited us. Since the election, I have requested meetings with Ministers to discuss the failed proposal and debts. You can imagine my surprise when I learned that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), had been to St. Albans on 10 December, because I was unaware of that visit. I was unaware, too, that meetings were held to discuss the hospital bid. Will you give me guidance on the matter, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has not as yet given me any indication that he will discuss the matter with elected Members, although parliamentary wannabes seem to receive that courtesy?

Mr. Speaker: It is a courtesy for any hon. Member who visits another constituency on an official matter to extend notice of the visit to the Member who represents the constituency. Whether it is a Minister or a Back Bencher, they should inform the sitting Member of Parliament that they are visiting their constituency. It is different, of course, if it is a private matter. I do not have any powers to tell a Minister to meet a Back Bencher, but I served as a Back Bencher in opposition, and it was always good to go and see a Minister. Ministers should consider seriously any request from an hon. Member to come and see them about a constituency matter. If a Member of Parliament cannot represent his or her constituency, who can?

Michael Gove: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, too, ask your advice as the Back Bencher's friend and as the guardian of the House against a sometimes over-mighty Executive? The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has announced today by way of a written statement the merger of English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation. This is a significant change to the machinery of government, involving millions of pounds and intimately affecting communities throughout the country. Today we are discussing the business of the House, rather than pressing legislation. Why has the right hon. Lady not come to the House to make that statement? This is a pattern on her part. Whenever matters of controversyfor example, the abandonment of the home condition report element of the home information packare before us, she makes a written statement and does not come to the House to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker: My view has always been that a Minister should inform the House. How that information is conveyed is for the judgment of the Minister. I will leave it at that.

Safeguarding Runaway and Missing Children

Helen Southworth: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish a national strategy to safeguard runaway and missing children; to make provision for the collection and reporting of information about runaway and missing children and for related co-ordination between local authorities and other bodies; and for connected purposes.
	In November 2005, the House gave consent to publish a Bill to protect runaway and missing children. The Bill was published last year with support from the National Missing Persons Helpline, the Children's Society, Parents and Abducted Children Together, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Crisis, the chair of children's services for the Association of Directors of Social Services, the lead officer for runaways from the Association of Chief Police Officers, and many hon. Members. That Bill's purpose was also to place a duty on the Secretary of State to safeguard children.
	It does not seem too much to ask that vulnerable children are identified so that they can be helped, that information is collected when a child is reported missing to the police, and that there is effective co-ordination to ensure that such children receive help. However, the House did not find time to give the Bill a Second Reading. Safeguarding vulnerable children is, however, the core business of Government. It is our responsibility and we cannot ignore it. We need the Bill.
	The Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills do not even know how many children have gone missing over the past 12 months. A large number of local authority children's servicesthe bodies responsible under Every Child Matters for safeguarding young runawaysdo not know how many children in their own area were reported missing to the police in 2005. Of the 120 authorities that responded to my recent request for information, 71 did not know the statistic for their area, 23 could not say how many of their looked-after childrenchildren for whom they were directly responsiblewere reported missing to the police in 2005, and 42 did not know how many children on their child protection register had been reported missing to the police.
	Police forces have been making progress during the past 12 months, but fewer than half are currently using the computerised systems designed to make recording and management of reports effective. Research by the Children's Society indicates that around 100,000 children go missing each year. Those estimates are corroborated by research for the Government's social exclusion unit review of young runaways in 2002 and by statistics from the Metropolitan police.
	That means that, on average, every five minutes of every day a child goes missing in the UK. Most get home safely and are cared for and cherished, but many do not. They are running from danger into danger. Those children must have someone to turn to and somewhere safe to go. It is our responsibility to make that happen. Today there are only 10 places available in refuges run by charities for children who have run away. National and local charities are the main providers of emergency help.
	The National Missing Persons Helpline has set up a dedicated runaways helpline, totally funded by voluntary donations and grants, which took 57,000 calls in 2005calls like one from an 11-year-old girl who phoned in the early hours of the morning, asking for help because her mother had kicked her out of the house. She agreed to speak to social services, but hung up. She phoned again a few days later at 10 pm and asked for contact with social services, which was arranged by the helpline.
	Almost a month later the girl rang again late at night, saying that her mum had thrown her out again. Social services advised her to go home, but she said she would rather stay on the streets than go back. The helpline night worker was able to persuade her to talk to the police, who picked her up at 1 am, very cold and scared. This little girl is 11 years old and has special needs. Without the helpline, she would have been out on the streets on her own through several nights.
	The London Refuge provides emergency accommodation and specialist support for children who have run away. Among the children whom it has helped in the past 12 months was a 14-year-old girl referred to the refuge by the police. She ran away because she was being hit by her mother. She disclosed physical abuse over a sustained period of time. She said that her mother had burned her with an iron, and showed the staff a serious scar on her stomach. She had special educational needs and attended a school for children with special needs. She had run away several times before.
	The refuge made a child protection referral, arranged for an advocate and contacted a solicitor on the girl's behalf at her request. She said she would not go home because she was too scared. Her solicitor attended the administrative division of the High Court on her behalf. The court ordered that she should be accommodated by the local authority, pending assessment and investigation. She was placed in foster care that day. The refuge does not have funding to continue its work beyond this financial year.
	Those children found someone to help them, but thousands of other children do not, and we do not even know how many of them are out there on their own. According to the Children's Society research, many young people sleep rough, stay with someone they have just met, or employ strategies such as begging or stealing to survive. There are serious risks to children surviving in this way. More than 8 per cent. had been hurt or harmed on the most recent occasion that they had run away. Children who were away for more than a week were twice as likely to have been hurt or harmed. The surveys indicate that over 20,000 children are missing for a week or more each year.
	The police have given me some anonymous case studies, and they are heartbreakers. A 14-year-old boy with a deteriorating sight condition that means he is partially sighted was being abused by his mother and so was put on the child protection register, then placed in a care home. He ran away from the home 23 times between the end of October 2005 and the end of January 2006. On the last occasion that he went missing, he was robbed and assaulted.
	Other casessome were far worsedepict time and again vulnerable children, including children in local authority care, children with special needs and children with mental health problems, persistently running away and being exploited by predatory adults, getting trapped into drug abuse, drug dealing, sexual exploitation and prostitution. One 15-year-old, born HIV-positive and in local authority care, was reported missing 120 times. A 16-year-old girl in care went missing 111 times.
	Yet Lancashire police, working with children's services and charities, have demonstrated that good information, appropriately shared, interviews with children and action to tackle their problems radically reduces the number of runaways, and in addition gives police the information that they need to prosecute abusers. The problem can be solved only by effective joint working. Because children who run away cross administrative boundaries, that co-operation must extend beyond the local area.
	If we want to buy a book or a piece of music, five minutes on the internet will find it for us. We can pay our road tax online or contact friends whom we have not seen for years. Information is available to us at the press of a button. The Bill will require police and Government bodies to use technology to record when a child goes missing. Local authorities will know that a child in their care has run away before that happens 120 times, and will be able to identify and tackle problems in their care homes. The Bill will also require agencies to work together so that police officers do not return a vulnerable child to its abusers, predatory adults are not left free to pick up children off the street, and charities can access statutory support when a scared and vulnerable child makes contact in the middle of the night.
	One does not need to be a philanthropist to back speedy action, just someone who will not put up with waste. It costs 1,000 in police time to investigate a missing person. The young boy with impaired sight whom I mentioned earlier, who was abused at home and ran away from care 23 times, cost 23,000 of police time in those three months. How much better that money could have been spent. How much does it cost to keep someone in a young offenders institute? Ninety-four per cent. of the inmates at Thorn Cross YOI in my constituency said that they had been runaways before becoming involved in crime. Early intervention can save children and save money.
	In short, a child is running away every five minutes. More than 100,000 will have run away in the past 12 months. Some of them will have been running from serious abuse. About 8,000 of them will have been hurt or harmed while they were away from homesome very seriously hurt. We do not know how many were murdered. Information technology and communications are now so advanced that a single telephone call from a child anywhere in the country, day or night, should give them access to safety and help. It is our job to make this happen, and it is about time that we did.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Helen Southworth, Ann Coffey, Dan Norris, John Battle, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. John Denham, Ann Keen, Ms Dari Taylor, Jane Kennedy, Mr. Stewart Jackson and Mr. Paul Burstow.

Safeguarding Runaway and Missing Children

Helen Southworth accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish a national strategy to safeguard runaway and missing children; to make provision for the collection and reporting of information about runaway and missing children and for related co-ordination between local authorities and other bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February, and to be printed [Bill 47].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the motion on conventions. I must tell the House

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With no disrespect to the Chair with regard to the selection of amendments, I merely want to draw attention to the question whether the practice of comity between the Houses has led to the fact that the proposed amendment, which would replace the words with approval with the words with interest, has been the reason for

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and knows full well that the Chair does not enter into debates about why amendments have been selected or otherwise. I have to tell the House that the amendment on the Order Paper has not been selected.
	Orders of the Day

Conventions of Parliament

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note with approval of the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions of the UK Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 1212 of Session 2005-06).
	Let me begin by commending to the House the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, which forms the subject of the resolution before us. The report is an impressive piece of work that has provided us with clarity on the key conventions that must govern the relationship between this House and the other place.
	Before I talk about the report in more detail, I should like to pay tribute to all the members of the Committee from both Houses. Many of its members from this House are in their places today. The outcome of its inquiry and consideration far exceeded the expectations in this House when we debated the establishment of a Joint Committee on 10 May. That is a great tribute to all its members. The fact that the report is unanimous strengthens still more its conclusions about the current operation of the conventions.
	I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend Lord Cunningham, who is a very old friend to me and to many of us, and who showed his customary felicity, as well as patience, in drawing together different strands of opinion and ensuring that there was a coherent and unanimous report. When the other place debated the report yesterdayI should tell the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that it agreed an identical resolution to approve itmy noble Friend the Lord Chancellor called it the bible on the existing conventions.
	I also pay particular tribute to one member of the Committee who is no longer with usLord Carter, who is sorely missed in both Houses. He had a very distinguished career in the other place. I got to know him well when, as Home Secretary, I had the happy task of being the Secretary of State with by far and away the largest amount of legislation of any Government Ministersome things never changeand I had to persuade him of the wisdom of that legislation and the ease with which it would go through the House of Lords. He was ever co-operative, but also clear about his own opinions when my enthusiasm overtook my judgment. He is sorely missed in all parts of this House and at both ends of the building.
	Today, the House is invited to approve the Joint Committee's report. The Government have published a response to the reportCommand Paper 6997the remit of which, for reasons that I will explain, necessarily goes further than that of the Committee itself. However, the House is not being asked to approve that response, happy though I would be for that to be on the Order Paper as well. We are instead looking for cross-party agreement on the report of a cross-party Committee and on its description of the conventions as they stand.
	Yesterday in the other place, there was general endorsement of the Committee's conclusions, although the debate extended to include consideration of an issue raised in one paragraph of the reportthe application of the conventions to a future House. I will come to that later. Although it is not the subject of the resolution, it will no doubt form a substantial part of the debate. We are looking for Parliament-wide approval of the Committee's report on the current relationship between the two Houses. The Government accept the Committee's descriptions of that relationship and its definition of the key conventions.
	One of the fundamental requirements on the Joint Committee was to consider the conventions on the basis of the primacy of the House of Commons. Indeed, the primacy of the Commons is the fundamental principle guiding all current discussions on any future and further reform of the House of Lords, and it has not, to my knowledge, been questioned by any party during previous debates on reform.

Richard Shepherd: But that is the very point of concern. This is being treated as a matter that is just between the parties and not for wider discussion. This House has never had a proper debate on what we want; certainly, there has been no such debate within my own party. It is not good enough to say that this can be wrapped up between the parties.

Jack Straw: With great respect, that is not the case. First, we are proceeding on an all-party basis. I am as partisan as the next person when necessary, but I happen to believe that on important issues of the constitution, if it is possible to proceed by consensus and cross-party agreement, so much the better, because those are the ground rules that constrain and help to determine the nature of the partisan debate.
	Secondly, as I said, we had a debate about the establishment of the Joint Committee on 10 May, when I was only in my first week as Leader of the House, and I was told by those founts of wisdom, the Whips, that it would all go through on the nod. The debate then went for about four hours, not least with a good half an hour from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who decided to open the debate when I was temporarily absent, for a couple of seconds, from my seat. He treated us to a lengthy disquisition, and very interesting it turned out to be. As often happens, the debate then took off and became a very good debate about the conventions on the relationship between this place and the other place. I am sure that the same will apply today. When we get to debate the specific proposals on the reform of the other place, much of it will be about whether moving towards, for example, an elected element, is compatible with primacy in the Commons. Much will be said by hon. Members of all parties about that.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his characteristic generosity in giving way. He rightly says that any progress on the issues must be made by consensus. He extols the virtues of consensus and I agree. However, paragraph 61 of the report states:
	Given the weight of evidence on this point, should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again.
	Let us compare that with the Government's December response, which states:
	Our answer to that question is that further reform should not alter the current role of the House of Lords as a revising chamber, and that the conventions governing its relationship with the Commons are fit for that purpose.
	Either we are wrong or my right hon. Friend is. I fear that, on this occasion, it is he who is wrong.

Jack Straw: I shall deal with my right hon. Friend's point in more detail shortly. Of course paragraph 61 is correct that, were the composition of the other Chamber to be revised, and the Lords acquired an electoral mandate, the relationship between the two would be called into question and have to be re-examined in due course. However, it is important not to parody the Government's response. As my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor made clear, it is a response by the Government as whole. We concluded that the primacy of the Commons can and should be maintained, and that it could be maintained in a reformed House of the sort that I would support. It was not a cavalier judgment but was reached after careful consideration. It is fully consistent with the repeated judgments of substantial inquiries, including that of the royal commission on Lords reform.

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the Leader of the House give way on that matter?

Jack Straw: Of course I shall, but let me make progress on primacy and then revert to the issue. That applies to other colleagues, too.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way? I wish to make a point on the subject that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) raised.

Jack Straw: I should like to make some progress and then revert to the matter. Of course, I shall then give way to my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished Member of this House and also a member of the royal commission.
	One of the fundamental requirements of the Joint Committee was to consider conventions on the basis of primacy. Recognising the unambiguous primacy of the House of Commons and its importance to the relationship between the two Houses is paramount in any debate on the subject. The Government welcome the Committee's clear statement of that fact.
	Four pillars bear the weight of the primacy of this House. First, the elected Members of this House determine the party that is in government and also determineas they did in March 1979when a Government's authority comes to an end. That democratic mandate is fundamental to the governance of the country and the primacy of the House.

John Spellar: My right hon. Friend said that the House's powers derive from its Members determining the Government. Is not that the wrong way around? We determine the Government because we are the elected Members. Our determination is based on the elective principle, not the Parliament Act or finance legislation or the fact that the Government have to command a majority in the House. It all comes down to the core issue of election. If we change that, all the other elements in the equation change, too.

Jack Straw: I understand the argument, which is quite strong, against any change in the other place to provide for an elected element. The fact that this House is wholly elected is a necessary part of the arrangement but, by itself, it is not a sufficient part of the relationship. There are plenty of examples, which are given in appendices to the royal commission report and mentioned briefly in our response to the Joint Committee's report, of wholly elected second Chambers in other countries that are clearly subordinate and have less powerin some cases, they are close to powerlessthan the House of Lords. It is perfectly possible to construct arrangements, depending, to put it bluntly, on what is acceptable and the constitution, whereby one Chamber is clearly supreme and has primacy, notwithstanding the fact that the other ChamberI do not support the model that I am outliningis also wholly elected.

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the Leader of the House give way on that point?

Jack Straw: Let me give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) first because I sense the way that the debate is going.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend has asked the House to note with approval the report. With a tiny caveat, I am happy to note the report with approval. However, paragraph 61not paragraph 63, as the summary statesreads:
	Our conclusions apply only to present circumstances. If the Lords acquired an electoral mandate, then in our view their role as the revising chamber, and their relationship with the Commons, would inevitably be called into question, codified or not.
	We are therefore being asked to approve the report on the basis of the continuation ad infinitum of the status quo. If not, we are wasting our time today.

Jack Straw: We are not remotely doing that. My right hon. Friend says that matters will be called into question. Of course they will be called into questionthey always have been. Those who take the view that any elected element in the other place poses an inherent danger will use that as part of their argument. I understand that. However, the Committee states that future arrangements are outside its remit and it is therefore not remotely the case that we are today closing down all debate on the future composition of the other place. I shall deal with plans for that later.
	My right hon. Friend was a distinguished member of the royal commission and he will recall that it, under the chairmanship of Lord Wakeham, considered the relative powers of the two Chambers at great length, almost in anticipation of the examination question set by the Joint Committee on Conventions. The royal commission recommended an elected elementof, according to the alternatives, between 12 and 35 per cent. Recommendation 2 on page 33 concluded:
	The House of Commons, as the principal policy forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of...legislation. Equally, the second Chamber should have sufficient power, and the associated authority, to require the Government and the House of Commons to reconsider proposed legislation and to take account of any cogent objections to it.
	Recommendation 6 states:
	The reformed second chamber should maintain the House of Lords convention that all Government business is considered within a reasonable time.
	Other support was given to what were understood then and now to be such conventions. I agree with the conclusions of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the royal commission.

Malcolm Rifkind: Is not the Leader of the House in danger of treating primacy rather like pregnancy? Either one is or one is not. Has not the meaning of primacy evolved in the past 300 years as this House has become more democratic? If the upper Chamber became wholly or partly elected, one could surely retain the primacy of this House, but it might be significantly less than is currently the case. Is not that the real issue?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) chaired the Public Administration Committee and presided over a reportone of several on the subjecton the future of the House of Lords. Towards the end of his report, he and his colleagues wrote that changing the nature of the other place is not a zero-sum game with this HouseI believe that that is an accurate recollection of what the Committee saidand I agree with that.
	I do not for a second regard primacy as being like pregnancy, although it is an elegant metaphoreither you are or you are notbut it is evolving and it has, for sure, evolved very significantly. I have always acceptedI did so when I gave evidence to the Joint Committeethat as the other place has increased its active membership, which has been a dramatic change over the past 30 years, and following the changes in 1999, it has become more assertive and more questioning. Let me say, as someone who has served at a senior level in the British Government for the last 10 years, that I do not mind that. I happen to believe that the questioning of Ministers is a way of improving Government decisions, as well as being an accepted part of our democracy, rather than an irritant. Of course, there have been mornings, particularly when I was in the Home Office, when I thought that it would be nice if the House of Commons were on holiday.
	For sure, as I said, primacy is evolving. We can debate the issue at greater length when we discuss the White Paper, as it is obvious that there is an appetite for change and I am pleased about that. I have always accepted that the role would change. What I do not acceptand, more to the point, what people much more distinguished than me have not acceptedis that at the moment we introduce an elected element in the House of Lords, by virtue of that fact the primacy of the Commons and the ability of the Government to have the final say suddenly dissolves. That strikes me as unsustainable, unsubstantiated and devoid of evidence.

Simon Hughes: Does the Leader of the House agree that the sequence of events that we were engaged in was, first, trying to answer the question about the present disposition of powers between the two Chambers so that we could then debate the change in the composition of the House of Lords on the basis of an agreement, if we could reach it? The Committee did not say that there will definitely be a change, argued for or won; all it said was that the question of whether, if we change the composition, there should be a change in the relative powers is bound to come back. It was done completely logically, but there was no presumption across the Committee that just because we changed the composition of the other place, there would have to be a further change.

Jack Straw: I accept that entirely. It is part of a sequence. The Joint Committee was established only because it was triggered by our manifesto commitment to further reform, and was supported to go further by the manifesto commitments of both Opposition parties.
	My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said yesterday:
	The acceptance of the other place's primacy has been the 'bedrock' of all discussions on the reform of your Lordships' House, and no party has deviated from that acceptance.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2007; Vol. 688, c. 575.]
	I would also like to quote a good friend of minemy noble Friend Baroness Symons of Vernham Deanwho takes a slightly different view from me on this matter. Although she believes quite strongly that
	the relationship between the two Houses may well change if the Lords becomes partly or wholly elected
	she also says that, in her view, that is a fact
	within accepting the primacy of the House of Commons.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2007; Vol. 688, c. 620.]
	I fancy that there is rather less to argue about there than sometimes appears here.

Several hon. Members: rose

Jack Straw: I want to make some progress.
	I said that the first of the four pillars of primacy was the fact that the elected House determines who is in government, who is to leave it and who sustains the Government. The second pillar is the Parliament Acts. As the Joint Committee states in paragraph 18 of the report, the Parliament Acts have defined
	the fundamentals of the relationship between the two Houses ever since 1911, expressly limiting the powers of the Lords compared with the Commons, and acting as a long-stop to save a Bill and to vindicate the primacy of the Commons when there is a deep disagreement between the two Houses.
	The third and fourth pillars are the Salisbury-Addison convention and the financial rights and privileges of this House and I will return in a few moments to both those specific matters.

William Cash: rose

Jack Straw: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. No debate that I have taken part in over the past 10 years would have been complete without his intervention. I will pay for his journey to Blackburn if he manages to keep the European Union out of his intervention.

William Cash: I am delighted to be able to accept that offer. I am not sure when I am going to Blackburn, but my old school of Stonyhurst is not far away, so I may be able to take up the offer.
	I put it to the Leader of the House that he and others have been speaking about primacy, but is it not useful and very important to ask the question about from where that primacy derives? It is from the will and consent of the British people in an election, which in turn derives from the functions of the House, including the last pillar that he mentioned in respect of financial privilege. The whole question of taxation also lies at the heart of the matter. To differ from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), I believe that the real question that lies at the heart of the primacyI think that the Leader of the House may agree with medepends on the manner in which any elected or partly elected House would be granted functions by this House, which would depend on the Parliament Acts themselves.

Jack Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that issue. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor acknowledged the point yesterday that we have expressed the hope that the conventions would continue in any reformed Chamber, without more, but we also added in our response to the report that the extent to which there would need to be additional steps to secure that end would need to be addressed if there were any suggestion that the major parties did not support that approach in a new House. It is the case that when and if we reach an agreement by vote in this House on the broad outlines of the composition of a future House, there will need to be much consideration during the subsequent processesnot least the passage of any Billto ensure some guarantee that the conventions that everyone is accepting will operate in the new circumstances.

John Hayes: The Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) are right that the functions of any reformed House define its power to some extent, because they shape what it can or cannot do. That has an impact on its status, but form as well as function matters and the form of the House will, if it is elected, confer a political legitimacy that it currently does not haveand it is bound to be a competing legitimacy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is right that primacy is a relative concept, so, relatively, because of that competing legitimacy, this House will have less status, less authority, less esteem and less power.

Jack Straw: That is an argumentative point; it is the hon. Gentleman's view. If so, my advice would be to vote against

Patrick Cormack: It used to be the right hon. Gentleman's view.

Jack Straw: Indeed it did, but I can be forgiven for evolving my view. I do not believe that it is sustainable to have a wholly appointed second Chamber into the dim and distant future of the 21st century. We have to improve its legitimacy and we have to accept the consequences that go with it.

Patrick Cormack: rose

Jack Straw: Allow me to finish the point. If people feel that a change in the level of assertiveness by the other place is such as wholly to undermine this place, they should vote against any change. On the issue of reputation, it is slightly paradoxical that it is the wholly appointed House that claims greater public reputation than we do, but in my view the authority and the legitimacy resides here.

Patrick Cormack: rose

John Bercow: rose

Jack Straw: I am going to make some more progress before giving way again.
	Let me move on to deal with the Joint Committee's findings on the conventions and the Government's response to the report. First, on the nature of the conventions, paragraph 279 of the report concluded:
	Conventions, by their very nature, are unenforceable.
	In our debate in May last year, on the motion to create the Joint Committee on Conventions, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) quoted a saying among French lawyers, which he said could be translated into English crudely as
	To codify is to modify.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to say that
	whenever one tries to codify practices, general principles, ideas andabove allarguments, one takes away the essence of those various attempts to get at principles and ways of behaving, reducing them to rules and statements that start with the words Whenever or If.[ Official Report, 10 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 469.]
	There was a great deal of merit in what the hon. Gentleman said.
	Conventions evolve with time, providing us with a degree of flexibility that is required by Parliament. That is a further answer to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). The conventions are an integral part of maintaining a good, healthy, working relationship between both Houses. We agree that it would be wrong to involve the courts in a question of a breach of a convention, and the Government would not seek to do so. As we see in this House all the time, however, conventions are none the less powerful constraining principles that must not be lightly ignored.
	I come to the issue of reasonable time. The House will be aware of anxiety in the Government that delays in the Lords in considering Bills were unjustly disrupting the legislative programme. The Government's manifesto of 2005 therefore proposed that the Lords should be given 60 sitting days to consider business. The Government welcome the Joint Committee's conclusion, in paragraph 153 of the report, that a convention exists that the Lords should consider Government business within a reasonable time.
	Throughout, our primary concern has been to seek
	the outcome that is behind the manifesto commitment,
	as I explained to the Committee in June last year. That outcome is the proper consideration of Bills in the Lords, as the revising and scrutinising Chamber, and their timely return to the Commons. We are not wedded to the method specified in the manifesto and are glad instead that it has been used as a starting point for the Committee's consideration. We also support the Joint Committee's proposal that an indication could be made on the Order Paper of the other place when it has spent more than 80 days on the consideration of a Bill.
	The Government also accept the Committee recommendations on the Salisbury-Addison convention. This important convention is the third pillar upholding the primacy of this House. A Government must be allowed to carry through their programme of worktheir commitment to the electorate as outlined in their manifesto. That is vital to democracy and to Parliament's accountability to the people. The Salisbury-Addison convention was first formulated in 1945, when circumstances were very different. There was an overwhelming Labour majority in this House and a phenomenal, stupendous majority for the Conservative party in the other place. The Conservatives had more than 1,000 peers; the Labour party had just 16.

John Bercow: Too many.

Jack Straw: I note that the radical who masquerades as a Conservative, the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), shouts, Too many.
	There was plainly going to be grief if the House of Lords had been as assertive in 1945 as it had sought to be before the war. It was for that reason that Lords Salisbury and Addison agreed the convention. There have been changes since then, however, and we agree with the Committee that the convention has evolved over the past 62 years. It will no doubt continue to do so.
	The Committee suggests that the convention is now understood as meaning that in the House of Lords:
	A manifesto Bill is accorded a Second Reading;
	A manifesto Bill is not subject to wrecking amendments which change the Government's manifesto intention as proposed in the Bill;
	A manifesto Bill is passed and sent (or returned) to the House of Commons, so that they have the opportunity, in reasonable time, to consider the Bill or any amendments the Lords may wish to propose.
	The Committee also noted that the evidence points to the emergence in recent years of a practice that the House of Lords will usually give a Second Reading to any Government Bill, whether or not it is based on the manifesto.
	The Committee did not attempt to define a manifesto Bill, and we believe that it was right not to do so. In the original circumstances of Salisbury-Addison, manifestos were commendably short. The Labour manifesto that led to the great reforming programme between 1945 and 1951 was eight pages long. Our manifesto for 2005, although replete with wisdom in every line, was 114 pages long, and even more radical than its 1945 predecessor

John Bercow: Most of it was pictures.

Jack Straw: No, the hon. Gentleman is thinking about the 1997 and 2001 manifestos. The hair-shirt brigade, of which I am a member, won the argument when it came to the 2005 manifesto. I do not think that there is a single picture in it, except possibly one of our leaderbut in black and white.
	I believe, as a student of manifestos old and new, that whether they are eight or 114 pages long, they cannot be the last word, the truth and the light, on any Government policy. They have to be the subject of further consideration. For that reason, the Committee was wise not to define a manifesto Bill, or to say that there had to be some ineluctable connection between what was in the manifesto and what finally pops out in legislation.
	We welcome the clarity that the Committee's description brings to this essential convention and agree that it is time to consider a new name, to recognise its evolution. In paragraph 115 of the Committee's report, the Committee suggests that the convention be called the Government Bill Convention. However, as we state in paragraph 27 of our response, we are aware of some concern that that name could imply that the same, more restrictive, conventions apply to the Lords' handling of non-manifesto Government Bills as apply to manifesto legislation. We have therefore suggested that it might be more elegant to call the new definition of the convention the Cunningham convention, to acknowledge the work of the Committee and its impressive report. That question will not come before the House until another day, but I happen to think that it is a good idea. By convention, I shall call it the Cunningham convention.
	I come to the Committee's conclusions on financial privilegean issue that has exercised the hon. Member for Stonewhich is the fourth pillar of the primacy of this House. The financial privilege of this House, and the tight limits on the powers of the second Chamber in this area, are key to the way in which our Parliament and our constitution operate. Indeed, the Joint Committee, in its special reportits first reportstated that it would
	take the financial privilege of the House of Commons as a given.
	In paragraph 244 of the present report, the Joint Committee states that the Lords Economic Affairs Committee should continue to
	address only technical issues of tax administration, clarification and simplification.
	Provided that it continues to do so, the Committee felt that the financial privileges of this House would not be infringed. The Government agree with the Committee's conclusion. We will continue to keep under review the activities of the Economic Affairs Committee and its Finance Bill Sub-Committee, and we will not waver from defending the financial privilege of this House, which is fundamental to our constitutional arrangements today and in the future.
	In relation to secondary legislation, the Joint Committee concluded that the Lords should threaten to reject statutory instruments only in exceptional circumstances, and the Government accept this conclusion. The Government also welcome the Committee's conclusion that the Opposition parties should not reject a statutory instrument simply because they disagree with it. It is important to remember that the power to create statutory instruments, and the principles behind the primary legislation, will already have been debated and considered by both Houses of Parliament. Of course, Parliament can change the primary legislation, should it wish to do so.
	The Government believe that the principle that Opposition parties should not reject an SI simply because they disagree with it should apply even to the types of SI referred to in conclusion 17. The other place should not reject an order simply because it dislikes the policy, if the order has been properly made under the procedure set out. In relation to two of the circumstances in the Committee's list of examples, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already agreed to consider different arrangements for scrutinising Northern Ireland orders if devolution is not restored. I believe that that will meet with the approval of the House.
	In addition to that, the Government have given an undertaking that Parliament will have the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of Orders in Council transferring powers to the Welsh Assembly, before they are laid. The Government also accept that, should they lose a vote on a non-fatal motion about a statutory instrument, they should respond to the House and to the other place in an appropriate way. We also agree with the recommendation that should the Lords reject a statutory instrumentwhich, as Members know, is extremely rarethey should incorporate their reasons for disagreeing with it in their motion or amendment.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House is concerned about the primacy of this House and the ability of Members to hold the Government of the day to account. Does he agree that successive Governmentsnot just this oneare resorting increasingly to the use of secondary legislation because it removes the need for a full debate on the Floor of the House of Commons on important matters? Does he agree that there is therefore, to an extent, an abuse of the use of secondary legislation?

Jack Straw: Certainly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman thatI think that this is rightthe number of statutory instruments laid has increased decade by decade. I do not agree with him, however, on the reason. As a Home Secretary who generated a large number of statutory instruments, I know that the principal reason, in relation to the legislation that both I and my predecessors put forward, was that the House had said that the decision-making power to be invested in the Secretary of State should be the subject of parliamentary accountability, whereas previously no accountability at all would have been provided in respect of that. I am aware of the common charge that the number of SIs indicates Ministers trying to avoid scrutiny, but I do not think that that was ever the intention [Interruption.] Perhaps an inquiry into that is needed. A large number of decisions that would previously have been made by fiat inside Government are now the subject of SIs. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I happen to believe in the maximum scrutiny of ministerial decisions. However, if every SI had to depend on an affirmative resolution, the whole of government would gum up.

John Bercow: Whether or not the avoidance of scrutiny is the Government's intention, it is unarguable, on the empirical evidence, that in practice that is often the consequence. May I put it to the Leader of the House, who is both fair-minded and a serious parliamentarian, that if the Government expect their credentials to be respected and timeous consideration by the other place of secondary legislation, they would help their own cause if, more often than not, they could at least publish such secondary legislation in draft form before the Third Reading of a Bill in this place?

Jack Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we do our best in that respect. Certainly, the way in which we deal with secondary legislation can be improved. The challenge is to do that in a way that is practical and does not seize up the works. We have considered carefully recommendations in the other placean important and expanded function of the other place that has not challenged the primacy of this place but helped to underpin itfrom the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Substantial debate has taken place inside the Government on how we can improve procedures, and there is a good case for that to continue.

Alan Beith: I am not sure that the Leader of the House is doing full justice to paragraph 229 of the report. It gives a number of examples of circumstancesI shall just give twoin which it would be right for the other place to consider rejecting an amendment. That would apply when the parent Act was merely a skeleton Bill and the content of the statutory instrument was of a kind normally found in primary legislation. Alternatively, it would apply in those common circumstances in which a Minister says to the House, Don't worry about passing the Bill, because this can only be brought in by statutory instrument, which clearly implies the possibility of that statutory instrument being voted down at some point.

Jack Straw: There is gullibility and gullibility, but I do not ever recall saying to the House, Don't worry, we have taken powers to do everything, we're not telling you about them, and we'll slip them through. Any Member, on the Opposition or Government Benches, would object to that. In every case where special provisions have been madethey are listed on page 62 at paragraph 229, to which I referredthey have been made under primary legislation. The right hon. Gentleman might disagree with that, but it has gone through a proper process. Super-affirmative processes for some special circumstances should be subject to anxious scrutiny by both Houses, if that is what the provision lays down, but that does not justify the Government facing a situation in which they cannot get their legislation through.
	I want to conclude my remarks in order to allow other Members to speak. As has become clear, although the debate and the motion are about the conventions that govern the present relationship between the two Houses, the outcome that we were seeking from the Joint Committee was, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, a baseline from which to discuss further reform of the other place. The Committee has now helpfully provided that baseline.
	Let me now turn briefly to the other matters for the future. As our manifesto commits us to do, we intend to hold a free vote in both Houses on the future composition of the House of Lords, following the publication of a White Paper. The Committee's report will play an important part in informing that debate. I have already dealt with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and other members of the Committee on paragraph 61. As I have said, we have sought to answer that question for the moment. As we spell out in our response, our answer is supported explicitly by the royal commission chaired by the noble Lord Wakeham, by the Public Administration Committee, by the Breaking the Deadlock group, and by my noble Friend Lord Cunningham, in what became the first Cunningham report. On page 7 of our response, I quote from that report, which stated:
	We envisage a continuation of the present role of the House of Lords, and of the existing conventions governing its relations with the House of Commons.
	Lastly, as Members will know, I have been holding a series of cross-party discussions with Members of both Houses, including the Lords Spiritual and Cross Benchers. Those discussions are informing the White Paper, although the White Paper will be my responsibility and that of the Government. The discussions have confirmed, however, a genuine appetite for reform. I am not suggesting that there will be agreement between the different parties on the cross-party group on every issue; there is not. We have, however, been able to identify some important areas of common agreement, which will inform the House and other place in looking forward to reform.

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman further help the House by giving us some idea of the expected timetable?

Jack Straw: I was about to do that. I hope that the White Paper will be published in February and that thatI cannot absolutely guarantee thiswill be followed before Easter by a free vote in both Houses on composition. I hope and believe that the consensus that we have developed will stand us in good stead for further reforms.
	As we understand, today's debate is not about the White Paper or the free vote, but about agreeing the Joint Committee's report on the key conventions that govern the relationship between the two Houses today. That is a stage further than we have ever gone before. The report is very important and I commend it and the motion to the House.

Theresa May: I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the work of the Joint Committee on Conventions chaired by Lord Cunningham. The Committee members included many senior and distinguished Members of both Houses, who brought a wealth of experience to their deliberations. We are grateful to them for their efforts and sound judgment. I also join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the late Lord Carter. I did not have the benefit of knowing him, but I know that he was widely respected in both Houses and across all parties, and will be sorely missed.
	I welcome the report of the Committee and am happy to support the motion to note the report with approval. That does not mean that I accept every word of the report, but I approve of its overall findings. At an early stage of his speech, the Leader of the House said that the Committee's work had exceeded expectations. If I may say so, that was a generous turn of phrase, given that when the Committee was established many of us expected that far from confirming the role of the upper House and its conventions, the Government intended the Committee to seek ways to undermine that role and restrict the powers of the other place, or at least to prevent an increased or enhanced role for the House of Lords. I remain of the view that that was the Government's intention in setting up the Joint Committee.
	That was hinted at in the report, when the issue of the primacy of the House of Commons was discussed. There is reference on page 23 to relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Paragraphs 59 and 60 state:
	there remains a distance between the Government and opposition visions of the role of the House of Lords. At the risk of over-simplifying, the opposition parties are broadly happy with the Lords' behaviour since 1999; the evidence we have received suggests that the public at large feel the same. The Government do not.
	It is generally accepted that any reform of the Lords' composition which introduced an elected element would invite the House of Lords to be at least as assertive as in recent years, and probably more so. The Opposition accept this and say they would welcome it. The Government would not. They hope to fix the role of the Lords, by a process of codification, so as to prevent this outcome.
	I am pleased to say that the Committee avoided that intention of the Government. That is why I am slightly surprised by the strength of the Government's welcome for the report, particularly as it arose from a Labour party election manifesto commitment mentioned by the Leader of the Housethe policy of restricting deliberations on legislation in their lordships' House to 60 days.
	Despite all that, the immense good sense and experience of members of the Committee led them down a different path. I welcome their acknowledgment of the role of the House of Lords, its effectiveness and the good workings of the conventions that exist in that House, and between us. As the Committee found, the conventions work, and their flexibility is a benefit. The House of Lords does not hold up Government business and, crucially, its process of scrutiny aids the process of developing effective legislation rather than prejudicing it.
	Let me now turn to the specifics of the report. I will deal first with the primacy of the Commons, which has already been the subject of some exchanges across the Chamber. The Committee was instructed to accept it and, having taken evidence, did not question it. I welcome that, as in my view it is the crucial underpinning of any consideration of the roles of the two Chambers. It must also be accepted, however, that any change in the composition of the House of Lords that introduces an elected element will change the relationship between the two Chambers.
	In this regard, I agree with both my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). It is possible to envisage a changed arrangement in which primacy remained with the House of Commons, but the nature of that primacy was different from its nature today. Although it is derived from elections and the fact that we in this House are 100 per cent. elected, our primacy is exercised by functions, and it is perfectly possible to envisage decisions in the future that would change those functions.

Andrew Miller: Is the right hon. Lady saying that in such circumstances primacy would be pushed further and further in accordance with the degree of electoral mandate? Does she envisage a scale on which a tiny elected element would have a small impact on the primacy issue, but a wholly elected second Chamber would have a significant impact on it?

Theresa May: I am not describing a spectrum on which the degree of primacy of the House of Commons would depend on the percentage of elections to the House of Lords. I am saying that although we understand our primacy to have been derived from the fact that we are elected, we should recognise that it is exercised by virtue of the functions that this House has, which are different from those of the House of Lords. I am not suggesting that this should happen, but it would be perfectly possible in a changed environment for decisions to be made that changed those functions and thus affected the nature of the primacy of this Chamber.

Tony Wright: Surely the point is that primacy is a political, constitutional and legal fact. As far as I am aware, nothing in any proposal for a reformed second Chamber is designed to alter that.

Theresa May: That is absolutely true, and there is no intention that it should be altered. I am simply saying that it would be possible for that legislative fact to be altered by decisions of Parliament, because Parliament established the rules that show how the primacy of this Chamber is exercised.

Gerald Kaufman: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), but surely the right hon. Ladywho is discussing the issues in great depthmust agree that the primacy of the House of Commons would inevitably be eroded, if not worse, if people were elected to another Chamber, almost certainly on a low poll and almost certainly on the basis of proportional representation, and then claimed electoral parity with people elected to this place.

Theresa May: I do not accept that the primacy of this Chamber would inevitably be eroded if the House of Lords had an elected element. I believe that the relationship between the two Houses would be changed, but that it would be possible for this House to decide still to exercise the functions from which its primacy derives.

Several hon. Members: rose

Theresa May: I am beginning to wish that I had not embarked on this. I will give way to those whom I see on their feet, but then I must make progress. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack).

Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does she accept that if a second Chamber were wholly or partly elected, and if its relationship with this Chamber were similar to the relationship that currently exists, we would be unlikely to see men and women of great eminence and quality seeking election to that body?

Theresa May: I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. Friend.

Alan Williams: rose

Richard Shepherd: rose

Theresa May: I will give way first to the Father of the House.

Alan Williams: Hypothetically speaking, one party could have a majority in this House and the other could have a bigger majority in the other House. In that event, who would have more electoral credibility?

Theresa May: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should wait for the White Paper mentioned by the Leader of the House, which may contain suggestions on how these matters should be addressed. There are a number of ways of looking at issues relating to elections to another House, not least issues relating to the terms of election. I will not take the route down which the right hon. Gentleman tempts me, because it would lead me into discussing the ways in which elections would take place in the other House, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would suggest that that was not a matter for debate in the context of the motion.

Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend mentioned the function of the other place as if it had a different function, but historically the functions are the same, involving such processes as the legitimacy of legislation and the examination of it. The diffidence that currently characterises the House of Lords results from lack of legitimacyelectoral legitimacy. That is the only distinction. The conventions that have been recorded, which we are discussing today are, in fact, a reflection of the way in which the House of Lords perceives its role.

Theresa May: Perhaps I should not have used the term function when describing the differences between the Commons and the Lords. I was talking about matters such as financial privilege, in which respect the powersperhaps that it is a better wordof this Chamber are different from those of the House of Lords, because the House of Lords does not take part in decisions on tax-raising, for example. Those, however, are functions, or powers, that it has been decided will remain in this Chamber. My point in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who is no longer present, was that those powers and functions could be changed at some point. I am not suggesting that they should be, but it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which it might be suggested.

Alan Williams: rose

Theresa May: I did say that I wanted to make some progress. I have taken quite a few interventions. [Hon. Members: He is the Father of the House.] All right, I will give way.

Alan Williams: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that at times elections will take place on the basis of manifestos, not just on the basis of Elect me to the House of Lords? There could be a significant majority in the other place, on a manifesto significantly different from that of a smaller majority Government in this place. In that event, who would represent the electorate?

Theresa May: If people seek election to the House of Lords, of course they will talk to the electorate about what they will do. That will depend, however, on decisions made, when the time comes, on the nature of the elections and the area that those people would represent.
	This is one of the issues that I have raised in discussions on a number of occasions. We politicians all too easily assume that any elections to the House of Lords will take place only on the basis of some sort of party or manifesto representation, in which case the problems that have been set out could indeed arise. However, in my view what we should be aiming for is the election of independents to the House of Lords.

Several hon. Members: rose

Theresa May: That has opened up an entirely new

John Spellar: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have already taken one intervention beyond those that I said that I would take, and it would not be proper for us to discuss the composition of a future changed and reformed House of Lords in our debate today. I will make a reference

John Spellar: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: No, I would like to make some progress.

John Spellar: The right hon. Lady has raised a new issue.

Theresa May: It is a new issue, but I would like to make some progress on the issues to which the motion is addressed.

John Spellar: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady has made it clear that she will now press on.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to return to the point about the extent to which the Joint Committee report might pertain if there were changes in the composition of the House of Lords. The Committee was absolutely clear about this, and I make no apology for repeating what it said, even though it has been quoted by other Members. In paragraph 61, in a comment that was also brought forward into the summary of the report, the Committee states:
	Our conclusions apply only to present circumstances. If the Lords acquired an electoral mandate, then in our view their role as the revising chamber, and their relationship with the Commons, would inevitably be called into question, codified or not.
	It continues:
	should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again. What could or should be done about this is outside our remit.
	I have no problem with the Committee's decision. What I do have some difficulty with is the Government's response to that; that is where the problem lies. In paragraph 9 of page 4 of the Government response, they say:
	Our answer...is that further reform should not alter the current role of the Lords as a revising chamber, and that the conventions governing its relationship with the Commons are fit for that purpose. We believe the relationship the Joint Committee describes is one which should apply to any differently composed chamber.
	As I have suggested, it is inconceivable that a second Chamber with elected Members would not want to reconsider the conventions. It might wish to wait to do that until after it had had some time of operating under the current conventions, but as I have said to the Leader of the House on several occasions, an elected House of Lords, or a House of Lords with an elected element, would be a very different House of Lords from that which currently exists. We cannot introduce elections to the House of Lords and expect that it will be the same as it currently is except with a few elected Members. Just as the House post-1999, with what the Government described as its increased legitimacy, has flexed its muscles more than the previous House did, so a House of Lords with elected Members will, I believe, want to reconsider the conventions. The Joint Committee rightly said that it was outside its remit to look at a changed House of Lords, but the Government cannot sweep aside issues to do with that and assume that a changed House of Lords would have no desire to look again at such issues.
	Let me turn briefly to the specific conventions addressed by the Committee. Firstthis might initially seem to be a minor pointI do not agree that the Salisbury-Addison convention should be renamed the Government Bill convention. That is precisely because of the issue raised by the Leader of the House in his opening speechthat it does not apply to all Government Bills because it does not apply to non-manifesto Bills. The Leader of the House has reiterated the Government's suggestion that it might be named the Cunningham convention. I have no objection to noting the role played in this matter by the noble Lord of that name, but I see no reason to change the convention's name, because the Committee has not changed the convention and believes that it operates well as it is. Therefore, I see no reason to change the name from the Salisbury-Addison convention. Nor do I see any need to set it out in a formal resolution, and I suggest that to do so would verge on the very process of codification that the Committee rightly rejected.
	I wish to talk about secondary legislation, which has also been the subject of exchanges across the Floor of the House. It raises issues that go wider than the operation of the conventions of the House of Lords. It has been my view for some time that we need to look more widely at the way in which both Houses deal with secondary legislation, as there are problems with the current system. Those problems arise primarily because there is so much secondary legislation, and because Government have increasingly used primary legislation in the form of skeleton Bills, relying on secondary legislation to fill in the detail. While no one would suggest that it is always right for all the detail to be included in every Bill, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Secondary legislation does not get proper scrutinyand of course, it cannot be amended.
	The Government must stop taking the easy option of having primary Bills giving powers to the Secretary of State to make large numbers of regulations through statutory instruments; we need the Government to exercise restraint. It makes for better legislation if more is included in a Bill, as that allows greater scrutiny of the measures proposed. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned, in its deliberations on secondary legislation the Committee said that one of the reasons that could be given for the Lords threatening to defeat secondary legislation arose if the parent Act was a skeleton Bill and the provisions of the statutory instrument were of a sort more normally found in primary legislation. Fewer Bills, with more time for them to be properly considered and with more detail included in them, so that they could be properly discussed in both Houses, and with less resort to secondary legislation, would lead to better legislation.
	In response to an intervention, the Leader of the House said that perhaps we should have an inquiry; I think that we should. The House should take time to look at how it handles secondary legislation. Another issue that such an inquiry could cover is whether there should be a power to amend. I have said in this House that I have some sympathy with that idea, and the Joint Committee referred to it, saying on page 63, in paragraph 233:
	The problem with the present situation is that the Lords' power in relation to SIs is too drastic. The picture would be very different if Parliament had power to amend SIs.

Andrew Tyrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's first White Paper on the House of Lords in the first Parliament after 1997 included exactly that proposal, and that they then decided to change their mind at the last moment, perhaps because they realised that that might enhance to some degree the authority of the second Chamber?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that; it is relevant. We need to look seriously again at the secondary legislation issue, and the Government might change their mind on that original proposal that they brought forward.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that there are references to orders made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and remedial orders under the Human Rights Act 1998 in page 13 of the Government response. Does she agree that there might be occasions when it is necessary to override the application of the European Communities Act 1972 in respect of regulatory reform ordersas my right hon. Friend knows, I proposed an amendment on that subject, which was supported by our party both in this House and the other placeand that that would require amendments and statutory instruments, so that is another, and more powerful, reason for making sure that we get this right?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It appears that I am not as lucky as the Leader of the House with interventions. Perhaps I should have offered my hon. Friend a trip to Maidenhead.  [Interruption.] He tempts me down a certain route, but all I will say is that there is a very real need for this House to re-examine issues to do with secondary legislation. That would enable us to take on board another issue that the Committee dealt with in considering how the Lords handle secondary legislation. It made the point that the Government should be seen to take non-fatal motions in the Lords rather more seriously than they do at present. The Committee proposed that there should be a written statement in response to such motions. I share the view expressed in the debate in another place by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Strathclyde that there should be an oral statement or a debate on such matters.
	The Committee found nothing intrinsically wrong with the ping-pong system, but it referred to the need for proper notice of amendments and proper time for consideration of amendments. That would not only enable Opposition parties to give proper consideration to the proposals, but benefit the Officers of both Houses and, crucially, give more time for cross-party discussions and for potential compromise where that was desirable. That is an issue to which both Houses should return.
	The Committee's conclusion on the question of reasonable timewhich, as I said earlier, was specifically raised in the Labour party manifesto at the last electionshould be generally welcomed, although I find it a little surprising that the Government have rolled over quite so easily, given that manifesto commitment. We all want to ensure that legislation is dealt with in a timely fashion, but it would be wrong to set a deadline for the House of Lords' consideration of legislation. Moreover, the length of time taken for consideration of any Bill in their lordships' Houseor, indeed, in this Houseis of course not just a matter of the time taken to scrutinise that legislation; it is also dependent on the Government business managers. Given that, as the Leader of the House has suggested on a number of occasions, we should think ahead to when we are in government, I would not wish to restrict the flexibility available to Government business managers on this matter.

Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that one reason why the Lords have in recent times spent a great deal of time on certain Bills is that they departed the House of Commons with very large tranches of them completely undebated and ignored in this House? The Lords have done no more than their constitutional duty in undertaking the scrutiny that should have been undertaken in this House.

Theresa May: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who was a distinguished member of the Joint Committee. If he casts his mind back, he may recall that I made that point in my evidence to the Committee. There is a real need for the House of Commons to consider how it looks at legislation, in order to ensure that we give proper consideration to all aspects of Bills. That is one reason why I referred earlier to the need for less legislation, which could then be given rather better consideration by both Houses. That would ensure that we end up with better legislation on the whole, instead of the current situation whereby significant aspects of Bills are all too often not considered by this House and have to be considered by the Lords, which does not lead to the best legislation that we could pass.
	As I was saying, on the issue of the length of time, I welcome the fact that the Committee has not established a deadline as such. The Committee was also asked to consider codification, and I very much welcome the fact that it resisted that proposal. It said in its summary:
	We do not recommend legislation, or any other form of codification which would turn conventions into rules, remove flexibility, exclude exceptions and inhibit evolution in response to political circumstances.
	That is important. The merit of our system is that, precisely because it is not codified, it can be exercised flexibly and can evolve over time to meet changing needs. I have always thought that trying to find a way of setting out in a code or legislation what is or is not a manifesto commitment would be an impossible task, the only beneficiaries of which would be the lawyers. I am therefore happy to give my overall approval to the Joint Committee's report and to the particular aspects that I have mentioned.
	Of course, the Committee's investigation took place against the background of work on proposals to reform the House of Lords and, potentially, to introduce an elected element to that House.

Patrick Cormack: Never!

Theresa May: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire will not be pleased to knowin fact, he already knowsthat I have supported having a substantial element of elected Members in the House of Lords, and voted for an 80 per cent. elected House last time. Indeed, I sit on the cross-party working group on reform, which is chaired by the Leader of the House. He expects to publish a White Paper very soon that will lead to debates in both Houses; helpfully, he set out the timetable this afternoon.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have entered into these discussions in good faith, aiming to find a way through the many difficult and complex issues that need to be addressed if elections are to be introduced or any element of reform is to be brought to the House of Lords, and we will continue to do so. I am concerned, however, when I hear that press briefings are taking place suggesting a degree of unanimity on all the issues. There are many issues on which much remains to be discussed and considered.

Jack Straw: rose

Theresa May: I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House said earlierthis may negate his need to intervenethat he recognises that there will not be agreement on all the issues relating to the White Paper in all parts of the House.

Jack Straw: There have been no covert press briefings; however, I did make a speech to the Blackburn Labour party, which got slightly less coverage than I was anticipating, although it got some.  [Interruption.] In that speech, I gave my analysis of where we have arrived at. It is on the record and it was not intended to generate an argument with members of the working group, which has proceeded in good faith; indeed, I am grateful for the contributions that the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have made to it. I will ensure that she has a copy of that speech.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that promise of a copy of his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) suggested to me a moment ago from a sedentary position that the right hon. Gentleman should perhaps have published his speech as an article in the  Lancashire Evening Telegraph; that way, he might have got rather more coverage.
	As I said, I am grateful for the Leader of the House's confirmation that he does not expect there to be full agreement on all the issues, and if I may I shall give just one example in that regard. Reference was made in the press yesterday to the use of a preferential voting system in this House to determine its view of the make-up of a reformed House of Lords. As he knows, I have real difficulty with that ideain fact, I oppose the use of preferential voting in this House. We have accepted the future use of exhaustive ballots for the election of the Speaker, but Standing Orders make it clear that even in such ballots there should be a single vote for each Member on each ballot. The idea of Members setting down preferences in a single ballot is contrary to the basic principle of votingthat a proposition is put and Members vote for or against it. I suspect that once it was introduced, it would be difficult to prevent such a system from being used on other issues, such asdare I say it?taxation.
	However, our aim in these discussions is to find a way forward that will strengthen Parliament, and we will continue to participate in good faith on that basis. The Government set up the Joint Committeewith, I believe, the intention of restricting the power of the House of Lords. The independence and common sense of the members of the Joint Committee delivered quite a different result. I welcome their report and pay tribute to their work, and I look forward to further discussions on the House of Lords, during which I hope we will all have only one aim: to strengthen Parliament.

Gerald Kaufman: I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to the members of the Committee, and in saying how much I welcome their report. When I intervened earlier, I said that there was one small caveatthe suggested renaming of the Salisbury-Addison convention. I agree with the shadow Leader of the House that that should not be done. One thing that I find saddening as we proceed with our activities in this place is the unnecessary junking of things that are part of the history of Parliament and of this country. Although I was a huge admirer of Robin Cook when he was Foreign Secretary, when he became Leader of the House he had a tendency toward change for change's sake, which did no assistance to the House. An example was the renaming of private notice questions as urgent questions, for which I saw no real justification. I very much hope that we will continue to refer to the Salisbury-Addison convention, because keeping those two names as part of the convention shows the way in which the history of both Houses of Parliament has evolved.

William Cash: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman means, but the Salisbury-Addison convention started out as the Salisbury convention and became the former only because further developments took place. If we follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning to its logical conclusion, we should either stay with the existing phrase or consider referring to the Salisbury-Addison-Cunningham convention, although that might be taking things too far. However, it is important that the right hon. Gentleman is accurate in describing the point that he makes.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did indeed suggest that the convention should be renamed the Cunningham convention. With the greatest respect to Jack Cunningham, who is a very old friend of mine, I do not believe that he has played quite the role in the evolution of the relationship between the two Houses that Lords Salisbury and Addison did.
	There has been much discussion on both sides of the House of paragraph 61, even though only two speeches have so far been made. I agree with the shadow Leader of the House that it is inevitable that the nature of the primacy of this House would change if the House of Lords were to have an elected element. As I said when I intervened in her speech, there may be different ways of achieving an elected element, but it is certain that those people who were elected to the second Chamber, in whatever way, would claim that the fact that votes had been cast meant that their House had rights in relation to this House that do not exist at present. That would erode and undermine the primacy of this House of Commons, which was certainly part of the terms of reference of the Joint Committee and was part of the terms of reference of the royal commission on which I served.
	There is no point, therefore, in claiming that things will not change if things do change, because if things do change, the whole balance between the two Chamberswhich goes right back to the passage of the Parliament Acts nearly a century agowould change. I do not believe that that would change for the better.
	I started my political career as a fiery socialist. At this mid-stage in my parliamentary career, I remain a fiery socialist, but part of my fiery socialism now incorporates the important doctrine that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I love this Government, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows, but occasionally they depart from that doctrine and, when they do, their intervention always ends in tears.

David Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Parliament Act 1911. Will he concede that the preamble to the Act states that the reform would be temporary, pending popular reform of the House of Lords? That goes back to the point that all of the conventions, even the Parliament Acts, come down in the end to the question of democracy and nothing else.

Gerald Kaufman: There are many different interpretations of democracy. In this country I regard democracy as being an elected House of Commons, the primacy of that elected House of Commons and everything that flows from that.
	My right hon. Friend paid tribute to the fact that the Joint Committee's report was unanimous. That always helps. However, I have to tell him that the report of the royal commission on which I served was also unanimous. We published it more than seven years ago and all that remains of its activities is this photograph of the members, in which I

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Visual aids are not encouraged in the Chamber, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. I trust that his words will be sufficient for  Hansard to report proceedings.

Gerald Kaufman: I am always guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that in addition to the photograph, which certainly shows me in my prime, the only thing that remains of the royal commission report is a handsome presentation edition that its members were given, which might now fetch a small amount on eBay, but is otherwise obsolete.
	The fact that the report is obsolete is demonstrated by the fact that my right hon. Friend, who is an assiduous student of all manner of texts and documents, failedas indeed Robin Cook failedto realise that it did not recommend an elected element to the House of Lords. If my right hon. Friend looks at page 122, he will see that we did not make a recommendation on composition, although we presented three possible models for the selection of regional members. Indeed, I might as well tell the House that if there had been an attempt to recommend an elected element to the House of Lords, I would not have signed the report. It was because I refused to go along with such a recommendation that we presented only models. I still stand strongly by model A, which does not contain an elected element, but would involve members chosen from party lists in proportion to regional votesat the same time as a general electionfor part of what I would prefer to call the Senate.

Jack Straw: I appreciate the gloss that my right hon. Friend puts on the report, but as he supports model A, I assume that he also supports the proposed description of model A as complementary voting. Either it is a system of election or it is not, and I read those words as meaning that it is a system of election.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend is so wise, but his wisdom does not extend quite as far as it might on this occasion. He has scanned part of the relevant page, but not all of it. The paragraph also says:
	Voters would go to the polls, as usual, on general election day. They would cast their ballot for the person they wished to be their member of the House of Commons in the usual way. They would not be voting, directly, for anyone else.
	It was only on that basis that I agreed to sign the report. One day, I may have the opportunity in the Tea Room to explain to my right hon. Friend exactly how we reached that stage.
	The conventions that have developed through our evolutionary history are very important to the balance of democracy in this country. When the royal commission began discussions, I said to my fellow commissioners that we should not believe that we could arrive at some sort of tidy, neat formula at the end of our deliberations. I said that the progress of parliamentary representation in this country was an evolutionary mess and that the commission could do no more than hope to add to that mess. I pay tribute to the Joint Committee because it has implicitly recognised that nice, tidy and convenient solutions might work in other countries, where they have things such as constitutions, but that we have a system of parliamentary representation that has evolved over many centuries. This country remains the finest democracy in the world because we do not mess about with codification. Instead, we get on with it, swallow what has happened and add to it. It looks like sludge and it is sludge, but it works. That is the great thing about British democracy.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned a future timetable, on the assumption that we will agree the motion before us this afternoon and move on to the Government's proposals. I was deeply heartened by the shadow Leader of the House's comments about her party's role in the forthcoming discussions. I got the distinct impression that the superficial tinsel of her commitment to co-operation disguised the reality that she would not commit herself to any co-operation except on her own terms. I admire and respect her for that.
	Every hon. Member has a different idea of how the relationship between the two Houses should evolve. As a result, I am heartened to believe that progress towards consensus will be slow, stumbling and, in the end, nugatory. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out a timetable for the White Paper and the subsequent debate, but it will be late spring before any sort of decision emerges from this House about how we should proceed with House of Lords reform.
	It will therefore be impossible for proposed legislation to come before the two Houses of Parliament before the 2007-08 Session. Before that Session begins, we will have, among other things, a new leader of the Labour party and a new Prime Minister. Others might know the candidates for the Labour leadership better than I do, but I somehow feel that whoever becomes leaderand therefore the next Prime Ministerwill not have reform of the composition of the House of Lords as a high priority. He or she will want to get on with other things in an effort, which I am sure will be successful, to enhance the Labour party's electoral prospects.
	I worked at No. 10 Downing street when Richard Crossman attempted to reform the House of Lords. As Lady Bracknell would say, we all know what that unfortunate movement led tothe waste of years in the 1966-70 Parliament. I have seen what has been done in repeated efforts to reform the House of Lords, including the multiple-choice quiz that Robin Cook presented to us. I am delighted to say that, so far, we have still got no further.
	I am a democrat. I have been elected to this House 10 times, and I believe strongly in that form of democracyespecially in relation to the Gorton constituency of Manchester. I believe that democracy resides here, in this Chamber. That should be the basis for any move forward, if we have to move at all. It is for that reason that I welcome the Joint Committee's report as a beautifully phrased and charmingly written restatement of the status quo. Although I would like to get rid of the 92 hereditaries, I hope that that status quo will continue long beyond the further long period for which I hope to serve in this House.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is a veteran of the debates on this matter, and we listen to his views with interest and respect. However, although he may be a socialist, I believe that he is a conservative one, and that most of his colleagues no longer share his approach.
	I welcome the debate, as I welcomed the one in the Lords yesterday. I welcome the way in which the Leader of the House introduced the debate, and the response from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on behalf of the Conservative party. I shall seek to respond in an equally positive and constructive way.
	I had the privilege to be nominated to serve on the Joint Committee, and it was a very constructive and pleasurable experience. All three main parties took part, and representatives from the Cross Benches in the House of Lords. When we started, no one was sure whether the Committee was a serious bit of business or whether it was designed to kick the debate into the long grass. However, our Chairman cast off some of his reputation and handled matters in a very non-partisan manner, with a firm but fair hand. As a resultand also thanks to the constructive approach adopted by colleagues from both Houseswe did a good piece of work.
	Our Clerks were very helpful, and the evidence given to the Committee was extremely good. The former Clerk of the House, Sir Roger Sands, and the present Clerk of the House of Lords were pre-eminent in their evidence, but other people also gave important evidence. I want to pay tribute to Lord McNally and Lord Tyler, my two colleagues who served with me on the Committee. Members of each party gave evidence: the right hon. Member for Maidenhead was one of those who gave evidence on behalf of the Conservatives, and the Leader of the House performed the same function on behalf of Labour. I want to thank my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who gave evidence on behalf of our party.
	Some of that cast took part in yesterday's debate. I shall complete my list of gratitude by adding my thanks to my two other colleagues who took part yesterdayLord Maclennan of Rogart, who speaks on these matters for the Liberal Democrats, and Lord Roper, our former Chief Whip in the House of Lords. The cast features people of great eminence from all parties.
	I also want to pay tribute to Denis Carter, for personal reasons and on behalf of my colleagues in both Houses. Tributes were rightly given to him on the Lords' first day back after the Christmas recess. He did an extremely good, effective and professional job in the Lords, and he and his wife were hugely appreciated. The love and sympathy for her was evident in the way that the Lords responded when they heard the sad news of Denis Carter's death. All of us recognise and want to salute the contribution that he made. He was an eminent parliamentarian.
	As a postscript to the above, I must say that his agricultural background made Denis Carter an interesting member of the Labour Benches in the Lords. He spoke with great authority on a subject that is not traditional territory for Labour peers.
	This debate is the first of a series, and others will follow on the linked matter of the structure of the House of Lords. I shall constrain my remarks today to a description of the arrangements that currently exist between the two Houses, and the powers that each has. I and my hon. Friends will vote for the resolution, which says that this House notes with approval the Joint Committee report. I would be in a slightly difficult position if I did not vote for it, given that the report was unanimous and I voted for it.

David Howarth: You can always change your mind.

Simon Hughes: I note what my hon. Friend says, which is true. All of useither separately or collectivelyare always changing our minds, and that is a good thing. We must never be critical of people who change their mindsand certainly not if they opt for a more progressive position.
	At the last general election, the Liberal Democrat manifesto contained four sentences that are relevant to this debate. The first three state:
	We will cut back the powers of patronage, in particular through our plans for a predominantly elected second chamber. We will make the Royal Prerogative powers which the Prime Minister exercisessuch as decisions over war and peacesubject to parliamentary accountability...We will...strengthen the powers of parliament to scrutinise the actions of the government, enhancing the Select Committee system.
	The final relevant sentence states:
	Reform of the House of Lords has been botched by Labour, leaving it unelected and even more in the patronage of the Prime Minister. We will replace it with a predominantly elected second chamber.

Patrick Cormack: For the sake of accuracy, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Lord Steel, his former leader, several Members of his party in the other House and one or two in this place take a very different line?

Simon Hughes: I am certainly aware that there is a common characteristic: people who were in this place, including my noble Friend Lord Steel, go native when they get to the other end of the Corridor. They forget the basis of the manifestos on which they stood when they were elected to this place.

Patrick Cormack: Some are still here.

Simon Hughes: Yes, I will always be straightforward about such things; one or two colleagues in my party and the hon. Gentleman's party have not signed up entirely to the manifesto on which those of us who stood for election campaigned at the last election. The party view was clear at the last general election, however, and it is the view of the leadership of the party in both Houses, of our shadow Cabinet and of the party: a predominantly or wholly elected second Chamber is our option. There may be dissentient voices and there is an argument to be put, but I do not think it will prevail.

Angus MacNeil: May I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman has himself gone partially native with his use of the phrase predominantly elected second Chamber? To return to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), if we are in a democracy with a bicameral Parliament, surely both Chambers have to be elected.
	On another point, I notice that I am the only Scottish Member in the Chamber, so I take it that Scots MPs are not expecting to be at Westminster much longer.

Simon Hughes: The last bit is a topical allusion, given yesterday's anniversary. The hon. Gentleman knows my view: we do better as a Union. I am partly Scots, so I can say that with my Scots blood as well as my English and Welsh blood.

Angus MacNeil: And I am half Irish.

Simon Hughes: If we all go down that road, there is a danger that we will show what a united and diverse kingdom we are.
	On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I voted for an 80 per cent. elected second Chamber last time, as did the larger number of my colleagues. That option nearly won; when it was put to the test it was three votes short of a majority, as colleagues will remember. There is a perfectly respectable argument for a fully elected second Chamber, which colleagues of mine have put regularly, but there is an equally respectable argument for something that retains the ability, in a non-party way, to add people of particular expertise to those elected. We shall come on to that debate. Such an arrangement would diminish neither the authority nor the capability and competence of the second Chamber.

Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman's logic is not correct. The important point, which makes the arrangement democratic, is that the democratic House, the elected House, has the final say.

Simon Hughes: The Father of the House has a consistent view about that and I respect it. I was going to talk about primacy later but I will deal with it straightforwardly now, given the intervention of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I have never dissented from the view that the House of Commons should be the prime House of the United Kingdom Parliament and that it will continue to be so, whatever method of election we choose, if it is the law of the land. The right hon. Gentleman and I will probably differ about the way in which we should be elected; I want this House to be representative of the views expressed by the publiche does not. That is an honest and traditional debate. I do not believe that making the second Chamber of Parliament predominantlyindeed, even whollyelected necessarily changes the primacy of this place, unless we make a decision to do that. It does not follow. Of course, the nature of the second House would be changed, but the constitutional relationship would not change. So far, pre-eminently among Parliaments, we have the power; we are not constrained by constitution and prevented from holding that position. We are not in France or in the United States, where the constitution governs the relationship between the two Houses of Congressthe two parts of the legislatureand the presidency. We are not constrained in that way, so unless we decide, and legislation changes the position, this House retains primacy.
	The report was absolutely clear about that. The primacy question was not asked of the Committee, but it was the first question it answered. For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee wanted to say, We agree that the House of Commons should be the prime legislative Chamber. The Leader of the House gave the reasons and the tests, which are obvious, and there was no disagreement about that either. This House is the place, where if the Government commands a vote of confidence and the Prime Minister wins the day, he or she has office; if they lose that vote of confidenceas the late Jim Callaghan didthey lose the right to be in government and have to tender their resignation to the Head of State.
	This is the place whose vote decides on the finances of the state; the other place does not. This is the place that initiates legislation. We could enhance the process. The vote on the Queen's Speech could be the formal confirmation every year that the Government have office. That is not a fundamental change, but it would make the constitutional position of the House even clearer. As the Leader of the House knows, my view is that whatever method of voting gets us here, we should retain primacy in this place. I argue for a more representative voting system, but it does not prevent me from accepting that we should none the less have primacy.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is inverting the argument. The reason we have primacy is not because of the formulaic procedures he describes; they translate the primacy of the House, which derives from the electorate and from the fact that we are elected. He describes the processes, not the bedrock of the system. Once we change that, and have an elected Chamber at both ends of the Corridor, I do not say that the process and procedures will change, but the balance must inevitably change. That would follow from that fundamental difference.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Of course, in one sense, the nature of Parliament will change. If there are elected Members in both Chambers they will claim an authority that cannot be claimed by a hereditary peer, a bishop or archbishop of the Church of England appointed by the monarch, a Law Lord or a life peer. I accept that. However, I have seen no proposal from any of our three parties, or anybody else, that suggests that there is on the tableor likely to besomething that will immediately change the House of Lords from an entirely unelected Chamber to one where everybody is elected, as we are, on the same day of the same year, with one mandate, on a platform that allows them to claim that they are the Government. There has been no such proposalit would be cloud cuckoo land.
	The proposals, which have been on the table for years, only ever accept the current position, which is that no party will have a majority in the House of Lords. That has become the agreed position of the three major parties, the Cross-Bench peers and their representatives, the bishops and all the others with an interest. Secondly, there is no proposal to elect everybody at the same time; there will be elections by stages, as in the American Congress and other places. People will not be able to say, We were elected yesterday to the majority; first, because in almost all imaginable circumstances there will not be a majority from one party and, secondly, because they will not have stood on a platform to be the Government. It will not be an election for the Government of Britain; it will be an election for the second Chamber of the legislature of the United Kingdom, to do two jobsmaking sure we have better, and good, legislation and holding the Executive to account. That is entirely different from an election that would result in the formation of the Government of the day.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman has signed up to a report that accepts that the conventions have evolved. Will he not accept that, following his logic, even if he were right on day one of his 80 per cent.let us sayelected Chamber, there is a genetic certainty that the conventions governing that House would evolve into something else? However we structure the debate, we have to be mindful of that inevitable development. How would he structure his reformed House to avoid that pressure?

Simon Hughes: That is a perfectly proper question and it ties in slightly to the points made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. Let us imagine that later this year, in this Session, the House of Commons votes for a predominantly or partially elected second Chamber. Let us imagine that relatively quickly, as I hope will happenindeed the Labour manifesto indicated that it would happen during this period of the Labour Governmentwe go to something that was intended in 1911, but was a bit slow in arriving: namely the completion of the process to get rid of the hereditary peers and to arrive at a democratic second Chamber. That has been on the agenda for nearly 100 years. A Liberal Government wanted to do that, but could not. The Liberals still want to do it, and we hope that, with the co-operation of progressive socialists and social democrats in the Labour party, we can deliver it.
	Yes, of course, there will then be a change in the nature of things. That is not genetic inevitability, but probability. People will say, We are elected now 80 per cent. of us. That will happen eventually. It will take a while in coming. If we do it by thirds, it will probably take 16 years, or 12 years, or 15 years, but it will happen. I am sure that people will say, Have we got the balance of powers between the two Houses right? But that change has been happening anyway over the last 10 years. It has been happening since the reforms of the House of Lords that got rid of the bulk of the hereditaries. It has been happening in the day-to-day arrangements. What we have been asked to do, and have done, is collect together the developments that have occurred and reassess where we are so that we know what we are talking about and what the balance of power between the two Houses is. Having decided that that is the balance of powers, and that we are going to change the structure, the issue will come back on the agenda. But we are still in control of that process. We have not lost any control over it. We will have to win an argument for saying that we want to keep the same relative power.
	We come to the point about what happens if people are elected to the other end of the building in a way that is more representative of the views of the public than the way in which we are elected. The change in my lifetime is that when I was born, in the '50s, 95 per cent. of the votes went to the two largest partiesConservative and Labourwhereas now only two thirds of the votes go to the two largest parties. In the case of the great '45 Government, during whose tenure the famous Salisbury-Addison doctrine was agreed between a Conservative Lords and a Labour Government with a majority in the Commons, something in the order of 35 per cent. of the total public voted Labour. At the last few elections, as the hon. Gentleman knows, just over a fifth of the public voted Labour. Parliament and the Government do not have the same authority in terms of the number of voters or the share of the voters supporting them.
	There will be an argument and that will force this House to think about whether it can sustain Governments on the basis of so small a share of the electorate. The issue that will come on to the agenda is how we can give more authority to the Government elected here. The hon. Gentleman knows what my answer will be: a more proportionate electoral system. Let me say as a postscript that I am not against single-Member constituencies being represented here. That is not my party's view, but it is my view. I understand the argument. For me, having a proportionate Commons does not necessarily mean that we have to lose the link with our constituents, which we all value. The Roy Jenkins commission, commissioned by the Labour Government, came up with a proposal that would answer that conundrum satisfactorily and that could command consensus.

Tony Wright: rose

Simon Hughes: I will give way to the eminent Chairman of the Public Administration Committee and academic.

Tony Wright: The hon. Gentleman has been involved in the Committee thinking about conventions. Does he think that we have an established conventionthis relates to his last remarksthat says that no single party from now on will properly have an overall majority in the House of Lords?

Simon Hughes: I do. The evidence given to us and the evidence as to what people wish suggests that in other than the most exceptional circumstancesthat is my caveatthat is now the status quo and the agreed convention.  [ Interruption. ] Let me finish. One of the interesting debates that is linked to that is how we guarantee that as far as we can. One of the ways of doing that is to retain a proportion of people without party allegiance. If that proportion is 20 per cent., for example, by definition we reduce the chances of any one party having a 50 per cent. share or more, because the 20 per cent. are a block and would help to prevent that.

Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has got himself into a bit of a muddle. If that is a convention, it is a convention that might be wrecked by an elected upper House if the electorate so voted. Surely he would not suggest simply appointing new life peers each time the electorate inconveniently chose to elect an overwhelming number of Members of one party.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to lead me to anticipate a debate that we will certainly have. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) asked directly whether I thought that the arrangement was a convention. The Committee was not asked to adjudicate on the matter, so it did not formally propose that there should be such a convention. There were proposals on which we reached a unanimous view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was an eminent member of the Committee, so he heard the evidence and he will remember the debate. That debate was held on the basis that it was the settled will of those involved in the House of Lords at present that no single party would be expected to have a majority in the second Chamber in the foreseeable future. That is the best answer that I can give him about my interpretation of the general view.

David Howarth: Surely the answer to the question lies in paragraph 61 of the Committee's report, as do the answers to most of these questions. The paragraph shows that the Committee was not saying what the conventions would be for a reformed House, only what they are now.

Simon Hughes: Of course that is the answer, and the purpose of my earlier intervention on the Leader of the House was to point that out. Paragraph 61 set out the position at present, but made it clear that it was not for the Committee to predict the position after a change to the structure. We were not asked or given the authority to make such a prediction, and we did not do that. We recognised not that the relationship would change, but that it would be questioned. We recognised that the question would come back, not that the answer would be different.
	Let me make a last postscript on the future

Gerald Kaufman: rose

Simon Hughes: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, this will relate to something that he said.
	Part of the description of where Labour will go next was given at the end of the last Labour manifesto, which says:
	Having refused for decades to accept any reform of the archaic House of Lords, some
	Conservatives
	now claim to support a fully elected House. The choice is forward with new Labour to modern institutions and more power than ever devolved to communities and successful local authorities. Or back with the Tories to a government indifferent to the health of our democracy and negligent of our institutions.
	That was an unfair representation of the progressives in the Conservative party, but at least it committed the Labour party to going forward...to modern institutions. In the year 2007, no one can suggest that a House of Lords elected by nobody is a modern legislative chamber. One cannot humanly, possibly, even begin to argue that

Patrick Cormack: Oh yes you can.

Simon Hughes: No, it is not possible to argue credibly or with authority that such a House of Lords is a modern institution. It might be authentic, a good idea, or wonderful history, but it is not a modern institution.
	Liberal Democrats are in favour of a two-chamber Parliament. We want the legislature to be stronger vis--vis the Executive. We want better pre and post-legislative scrutiny. My noble Friend Lord Wallace said yesterday that fast legislation is like fast food: both are bad for citizens' healthwe agree. We believe in reforming the other place. We very much believe that it was right for the Committee to conduct its exercise and reach its conclusions.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: Not at this second. The hon. Gentleman will rightly wish to make a speech if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as will other hon. Members.
	Let me add to what I have said about the primacy of the Commons. That primacy will be secured by the fact that nearly all Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the principal Secretaries of State of the main Departments, are Members of this House. By definition, that means that this is the prime Chamber. Additionally, this is the only Chamber that anyone contemplates being elected at one time. This is the place where Governments are made and unmade, the place where the Ministers are and the place that votes Supply.
	I disagreed with what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton said about the Salisbury-Addison convention. I am absolutely against junking history when there is no need to do so. I studied history and I love it, and it is important that we remember our history. However, the Salisbury-Addison convention, named after two Marquesses of Salisbury and one Viscount Addison from the past two centuries, has changed, so we need a new convention. In parenthesis, the Salisbury-Addison convention did not bind our party, because we were not party to it. It was a convention between two parties only, made in entirely different political circumstances. Under this convention, it was agreed that manifesto Bills, as the term is generally understood, would not be blocked by the Lords, and that Government Bills would normally not be blocked by the Lords.
	Occasionally, the Government try to misrepresent things, as they did in the case of identity cards recently. They pretended that it was a Government Bill, because they had said that they would introduce identity cards, but the manifesto clearly said that the scheme would be voluntary, and rolled out slowly. However, the Government then came back with a Bill that said that the scheme would be compulsory, so we cannot always take them at their word. The convention is different now, and we Liberal Democrats accept, as does the Committee, that the convention should bind the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead made a strong point about secondary legislation, and the Committee was very clear on the subject. It is important to note that the Lords do not normally reject secondary legislation, but they have the power to do so. The Committee set out six occasions on which the Lords must have, and retain, that power. The first occasion is when special attention has been drawn to the importance of the instrument by the relevant Joint Committee. The second occasion is when the order is a skeleton Bill, and Parliament was told, The detail will come later; that's when you can decide. The third occasion concerns orders made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 or the Human Rights Act 1998. The fourth relates to orders that specifically require super-affirmative procedurethat is, double-lock yes votes in both Houses. The fifth occasion is Northern Ireland orders, because of the unusual lack of democratic decision making and scrutiny for Northern Ireland legislation, and cases in which we are devolving primary legislative competence, for example to Wales or Scotland. The sixth occasion is when we are persuaded to delegate a power on the basis that we will have a vote later, as was the case with the provisions on jury trial included in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	The Committee hinted that we need a process for considering the whole issue of secondary legislation, including European legislation. I support that, as do my colleagues; there is too much legislation of that kind, and there is not enough parliamentary control of it. I support the idea that we should be able to amend secondary legislation, as that would help us to do our job better.
	There was agreement that we will not do what Labour's manifesto wants us to do and set a fixed time in which pieces of legislation must go through the Lords. The current system has not been abused. The long time that it has sometimes taken to get a Bill through the Lords has normally been due to the fact that the Government held it back at various stages. The danger is that if there were fixed times, or a limit to the number of times that the Lords could reject a Bill, the Government would play games. They would delay things until the last minute, and manipulate the timetable. We must allow the Lords ultimately to say no. The result is not that the Government lose their businessthe Parliament Acts are their safeguardbut that they may have to reintroduce the Bill in the subsequent Session, as happened in recent times with legislation on jury trial for serious fraud cases. If we had fixed-term Parliaments, things would be different, but we do not have them yet, and until we do, we must keep the right of the Lords both to decide what is a reasonable time, and to send work back for us to reconsider.
	I pay tribute to the Lords, who have done a fantastic job. They have often saved the country from legislation that was far too authoritarian or oppressive. They have upheld human rights when the Government of the day persuaded the House of Commons not to do so. That is not to say that if there were elected people among them, they would not do just as fantastic a job. The fact that they are not elected is not a precondition of their doing a wonderful job. I hope that they will continue to be confirmed in the importance of their secondary but hugely important role of helping us to legislate well and hold the Executive to account.
	We sign up to the final two conclusions, too. It is absolutely correct that there was no proposal that we should legislate for conventions, as there must be flexibility. Such legislation would be a straitjacket; it would be nonsense and a ridiculous inhibition. There was no suggestion that there should be a change in the financial privilege of the House of Commons, or that it should not have pre-eminence in such things.
	In the end, the report turned out to be an important piece of work and, surprisingly, it commanded consensus in a large Committee of both Houses. It gives a clear statement of the positiona state of the nation view, as it were, of Parliament in 2007. Having made that clear, we can improve procedures, do more to hold Government to account, and improve the way in which we scrutinise legislation. We need to do all those things, but, knowing the facts, we can do away with prejudices and decide whether we want to reform the second Chamber. My colleagues and I hope that we will create a senate that is wholly or predominantly elected. It would not change the primacy of the Commons, but it would change the nature of Parliament, which is a good thing.

Alan Williams: I am for the opportunity to make a few random, rambling and sceptical observations. I start, like every other Member who has spoken, by thanking the Committee for producing an excellent report, which is overwhelmingly important in its unequivocal emphasis on the primacy of the Commons.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), I remember the strange alliance of two great parliamentariansthe Labour Member, Michael Foot, and the Conservative Member, Enoch Powellthat was forged to frustrate attempts to introduce such changes in the 1960s. They were both House of Commons men and they both valued the standing and the unique status of the House of Commons. We must take account of the points made by my right hon. Friend, who offered us the criterion, If it ain't broke, why fix it?
	In yesterday's debate in the other place, Lord Falconer said that the House of Lords performs exceptionally well and
	does a hugely impressive job.
	He said that the second Chamber has been transformed and is
	an effective revising Chamber that adds substantial value.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2007; Vol. 688, c. 577.]
	I assume that, as a fellow member of the Government, the Leader of the House supports all those observations.
	Lord Howe put the role of the Lords into perspective by giving two simple facts. First, 40 per cent. of amendments tabled in the Lords are subsequently accepted. I suspect that many Members here wish that 40 per cent. of their amendments were accepted. More revealingly, he pointed out that on only seven occasions in the life of the Parliament Act, which is nearing its century, has the Commons had to call on its powers. The notion that something is broken and needs to be repaired is not borne out by the experience of Government Ministers or by the historic facts about the relationship between the Lords and the Commons.

Angus MacNeil: rose

Alan Williams: I am sorry, I will not give way.
	In 1997, the former Labour Back Bencher Tam Dalyell and I were equally sceptical about devolution. In one of my speeches, I said that the trouble with the devolution proposals before Parliament was that they were a constitutional...mystery tour. That is precisely what has taken place.

Angus MacNeil: It is not over yet.

Alan Williams: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to make progress.
	In the past two weeks, the Presiding Officer in the Welsh Assembly said that by 2010 he would like the Assembly to be in the position that the Scottish Parliament is in now. In Scotland, an election is being fought on a proposition to move from devolution to independence.

Jim Devine: The nationalists are all over the place. On television last night, the leader of the Scottish Nationalist party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), stated that if Scotland became independent it would still use the pound. Is that not extraordinary?

Alan Williams: I am grateful for that information. All is not lost. I should have thought that as good Scots, any Scottish party would cherish its pounds.
	If we move to the process of election, the big question is whether it sustains consensus. None of us knows. All we can do is make value judgment assessments. We may be right; we may be wrong. No one can produce in advance evidence to prove the case. All we can do is draw upon experience.
	This is my 43rd year in the House, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton has been here nearly as long. As a politician, it seems to me beyond credibility that if Members of the other place are elected they will not try to push the boundaries, as Wales is pushing for more and as Scotland is pushing for more.

Angus MacNeil: rose

Alan Williams: PleaseI ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish my point.
	In its new form, the Lords is unlikely to want just to fulfil the role of second-thinking the House of Commons. Indeed, Members of the House of Lords will be there because they are politicians, and as politicians they will have to be re-elected, so there is a democratic imperative. They must be seen

Simon Hughes: They will have to be elected, but only for one fixed term.

Alan Williams: Will there not be a democratic imperative? I seeI thought the proposal was about democracy.
	Members will need to convince people that they should be re-elected. Is it credible that young politicians will go into the House of Lords and say, We're going to run it in the fuddy-duddy way it was run before? That will not happen. There will be enormous internal pressures for the Lords to enhance their powers, at the expense of this House.

Simon Hughes: So that we are clear, I think that the proposal that commands the widest support among those who wish to see elected Members of the upper Chamber is that they should be elected, but only once. They would be elected for, say, 12 years.

Alan Williams: That is the most absurd proposition I have ever heardMembers of the Lords being elected for life.

Gerald Kaufman: Recently I was in Syria on a private visit. A leading Syrian, hearing that I was a United Kingdom Member of Parliament, asked me, How do you become a United Kingdom Member of Parliament? Are you appointed for life? Now that appears to be Liberal Democrat policy.

Alan Williams: In fairness, I probably misunderstood. My recollection is that there is a proposition that Members of the upper Chamber should be allowed to stand for only one term.

Patrick Cormack: That is indeed absurd. If Members were elected once and did not have to go back to their electorate or be accountable to them, that would create the most unaccountable set of Members of Parliament possible.

Alan Williams: I am beginning to realise that I should give way more often. The interventions are making a better speech for me than I can make for myself.
	I want to be brief, as there is not enough time to go over the whole range of issues. There is a further problem, but it will not affect me as I am retiring at the end of this Parliamentand it depends whether Members are elected for just one term; I was not aware that there was consensual agreementin that Members of this House will have another Member of Parliament shadowing them in their constituencies. They may be of the same party, or they may not be. If not, they will not be aiming to do Members of this House any good. Members here need to think of their futures. I am at the stage when I think of my past, and much of it I cannot even remember.
	I have merely floated a couple of what I would call heretical thoughts. As my value judgments are no better than anyone else's, we have to rely on a touch of realism and think about how any proposals would work in practice. When the Leader of the House produces his White Paper, I hope that he will remember that Parliament is not broken and does not need repairing.

Malcolm Rifkind: I pay tribute to the wise comments of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). Perhaps the most memorable thing that will come out of this debate will not so much be a new Cunningham doctrine as a new Kaufman doctrine. Given the implication of the concept, If it's working, don't fix it, at first I thought that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was going to make a passionate defence of the idea of retaining an entirely hereditary House of Lords, but I realise that he has also described himself as a fiery socialist, so perhaps that is how one squares that particular circle.
	I was privileged to serve on the Joint Committee on Conventions, which was one of those Committees of Parliament that generated more light than heat and was very worth while. Any debate that involves the future of the upper House is bound to be controversial. I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me if I say that this Government's record in that regard over the past 10 years has not been one of their more conspicuous successes. It was entirely understandable that a newly elected Labour Government might wish to contemplate the removal of the hereditary peers, but on the principle that if it works, do not fix it, the least that the nation might have been entitled to expect was that the Government would not move towards reforming the House of Lords until they already had a clear view of what they wished to replace it with. Yet here we are, 10 years later, with dramatic changes already having been made to the upper House, but still unaware of what the Government's proposals will be, although we are promised a White Paper in the near future.
	Against that background, when the Joint Committee was first established there was inevitably great suspicion, and rightly so, about the Government's motives. Some wondered whether they were simply trying to demonstrate that they had a policy, with the establishment of the Committee being part of that process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, some worried that what the Government really wanted to do was to try to freeze the existing conventions in advance of any change in the composition of the House, in the belief that codification would make that much more likely to happen.
	If that was the Government's approach, it completely backfired when the Committee reached the conclusion of its deliberations. There was unanimity not only among the members of the Committee, but among those who gave evidence to it. Politicians and academics, as well as the Clerks of both Houses, made it clear that the Government's preference for codification was foolish and counterproductive. The Committee not only came down against codification, but inferred, even if it did not say so explicitly, that the whole idea of reforming the composition of the upper House without opening up a vital and fundamental debate about the existing conventions and whether they needed to be changed was something that the Government and Parliament had to take into account.
	One would not deduce from the introduction to the Government's response that the Committee had undermined their central position. The Government say that they are
	very grateful for the work of the Joint Committee,
	that they
	accept the Joint Committee's analysis of the effect of all the conventions,
	that they accept its recommendations and conclusions, and that the report
	accurately defines the current relationship between the Lords and the Commons.
	One would not think that the whole idea of codification had been blown out of the water. Even more fundamentally in the longer term, one would not think that the Joint Committee is telling the Government that one cannot ignore the challenge that will be made to the existing conventions on the relationship between the two Houses if an elected element is introduced into the composition of the Lords. I want to make a couple of points about that. None of us knows the consequences of introducing a partially or wholly elected element into the House of Lords. However, two things are clear. First, the Government will not determine that outcome by themselves. They are entitled to a view, but they will be only one of many players in determining what will happen to the conventions and the relationship between the two Houses.
	Secondly, as other hon. Members have said, the change will not happen overnight. It will be a dynamic process, but that is not especially new. The existing conventions and the development of primacy happened over several hundred years. I have not the slightest doubt that from the moment the upper House is wholly or partially elected, the pressure will begin to build for reassessing the existing way in which primacy applies. The Government are trying to tackle that. However, all the Leader of the House could say today was that if the upper House were elected, it would be more assertive and that the Government welcomed that. I am not sure what he means by more assertive.
	The right hon. Gentleman tries to combine the declaration that he is happy that the upper House should be more assertive with the assumption that it cannot change the conventions or do anything other than be more assertive. What does assertive mean in that context? The Leader of the House sounds like the Englishman abroad who, on finding that he is not understood, believes that speaking loudly and being more assertive will make people understand the message that he is trying to convey. If that is the nature of the assertiveness, it does not add up to a row of beans and is unlikely to persuade anyone.
	However, the Leader of the House also said in his submission and his remarks today that the Government do not mind more assertiveness as long as it does not challenge this House's fundamental primacy. Again, that sounds reasonable. I doubt whether any Member or anyone in the country would question the basic principle that the House of Commons is more important than the House of Lords, regardless of composition.
	However, as I said in an earlier intervention, the right hon. Gentleman's argument is based on the false premise that primacy is a zero sum business. I used the example of pregnancy. One either has primacy or one does not. However, the message that many of us are trying to get through to the Leader of the House is not that primacy will disappear or that the House of Commons will cease to be the main forum for the nation's affairs, but that just as primacy changed its nature over hundreds of years to reflect the increasing democracy of the nation and the increasingly representative nature of Parliament, if and when that principle applies to the upper House a similar process will happen. The upper House will say, We, too, are representativenot in the same way or with the same mandate, but we can claim the electorate's mandate to some extent and our powers must reflect that if the democratic principle is fundamental to determining those issues.

William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that in May, when the matter was previously discussed, several of us forced a Divisionthe result was about 416 to 20precisely because we were concerned about codification? I made that point at the time. The motion that we should regard the report with approval is extraordinary. That is why some of us tabled an amendment, which has not been selected, to say that we note the report with interest, not approval

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Precisely. I call Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

Malcolm Rifkind: I do not alwaysand perhaps not even oftenagree with my hon. Friend, but on this occasion he makes a powerful point.
	In his response to the report, the Leader of the House made a point that, again, appears valid. He said that we should take into account the experience of other countries. He stressed that other countries have bicameral legislatures and that, in some cases, their upper Houses are also elected, but they do not claim primacy over the lower Houses. He asked why, therefore, there should be any change in the United Kingdom if an elected element were introduced into the upper House. Again, the right hon. Gentleman misleads himself. He assumes that we argue for a principle that when there are two Chambers, both of which are elected, they must be equal. There is no such principle; it is a question of practicalityit is for the nation to decide whether, when both Houses of a Parliament contain an elected element, they should have equal or different powers. What we are arguing is not that the upper House should have equal powers, but that if it is elected it will certainly claim a greater share of the power that is available.
	The right hon. Gentleman also misleads himself in not taking into account that what is unique about circumstances in the UK is that we are contemplating a fundamental change in the composition of the upper House. We are saying that for centuries we have had an unelected upper Chamber and we are now contemplating the introduction of a representative element into its affairs, so against that background the right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously be suggesting to himselfeven if he is suggesting it to the House as a wholethat that does not have implications for the powers of the new upper House that will come into existence.
	I do not wish to detain the House. Many of the necessary points can be made very briefly as they are simple and straightforward. In my concluding comments, however, I say to the Leader of the House that this is not just a debate among politicians, and it is not simply those who take a different view on the composition of the upper House who will argue about the consequences if the change were to come about.
	The right hon. Gentleman should look at the evidence that the Joint Committee received, including evidence from the Clerks of the Housepeople with perhaps more experience in these matters than almost any of we elected Members. The Clerk of the Parliaments said in paragraph 33:
	The introduction of an elected element would undermine
	the question of primacy
	as the House could begin to claim an electoral mandate. It can be argued that the greater the proportion of the elected members the stronger the mandate. If the Lords were elected by a proportional system they might even claim a superior mandate.
	He went on to say:
	All in all it is likely to be difficult to ensure that any definition of the convention now would survive a significant change in the composition of the Lords.
	That was the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Clerk of the House of Commons saidI quote his wordsthat
	it does reinforce the point made
	by the Clerk of the Parliaments
	with which I agree, that the principles on which the Salisbury Convention is based would inevitably be undermined by the introduction of an elected element into the upper House.
	Two of our most experienced officials gave their views quite objectively, making it clear, in their judgment, that there will not only be more debate and more assertiveness, but that the very principles of the Salisbury convention will inevitably be underminedthat was the phrase that was used. The Leader of the House must take those matters into account.
	It is worth rememberingothers have made indirect reference to itthat the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 made it clear that the constraints on the upper House simply reflected the fact that it was not an elected legislature at that time. If that were to change, the whole basis of the Parliament Acts would have to be reassessed and re-examined. I am not one who wishes to challenge the primacy of this House. I believe that, even if there were an elected upper House, it would be highly desirable that most of what we consider primacy to be about should continue to be relevant. We do not want deadlock in our legislative system and we do not want a situation where the Government would feel themselves equally answerable to both Houses, which might stultify the natural business of government.
	I conclude by saying that the debate is not about whether primacy would disappear. The question that the Leader of the House has still failed to address is why it would not be reasonable to assume that the primacy that this House enjoys, which has changed over centuriesreflecting greater and greater democratisationwould not begin to be reversed by an upper House that could also claim an electoral mandate. If the work of the Joint Committee has brought this issue into that degree of public debate, we will not have laboured in vain.

John Spellar: The previous speaker has just said that this is not just a debate among politicians. Well, most of this is exclusively a debate among politicians. I stand to be corrected, but I suspect that the Leader of the House is not much assailed on his soap box in Blackburn market about what he is doing about House of Lords reform. It is slightly extraordinary that, as was rightly mentioned by my right hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), we are proposing to gridlock Government business for the next two years and override other important business with which we really should be dealing.
	I want to deal briefly with two issues that I believe are linked. The first is the evidence of the former Clerk of the House, to which I shall return in detail shortly. The other has been mentioned by colleagues on both sides of the Housethe contradictions between paragraph 61 of the report and the Government's response on the issue of primacy. The key element that draws those subjects together involves the underlying issuewhich the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) slightly evadedof where we derive our mandate from. Just as the underlying driver for capitalism is not so much a desire for profit as a desire to avoid bankruptcy, we are dealing here not so much with abstract accountability as with the ability of the public to change us, and thereby to change the Government, by voting in a clear way. Anything that moves us away from that does serious damage to democracy.
	In his evidence, the previous Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir Roger Sands, said of conventions:
	A further difficulty would be the need for adjudication once conventions had been turned into rules. Any set of rules which precisely defines what can or cannot be done must be adjudicated upon by someone. Within the House of Commons, Standing Orders and practices are interpreted and ruled upon by the Speaker; disputes about codified rules governing relations between the two Houses would suggest the need either for the establishment of some new parliamentary machinery or for some form of adjudication outside Parliament, possibly by a specially constituted court as is the case in countries with written constitutions like France or the United States.
	I took issue with him on that matter, because I find the doctrine of an external body adjudicating over a sovereign Parliament particularly worrying.
	I asked Sir Roger Sands what the adjudicator would adjudicate on. I went on to ask:
	How could the courts then adjudicate on whether the House of Commons had applied its rules properly or applied the rules of the relationship between the two Houses?
	Colleagues might recall that we got quite close to that situation when a case was brought before the House of Lords over the use of the Parliament Act in relation to the Hunting Bill. It was extremely imprudent to have considered that case, because a certificate had been properly produced by a former Speakerin 1949, I thinkfor the amendment of the Parliament Act. He was a Conservative Speaker. Under our constitution, it seems absolutely improper for the courts to seek to rule not on the interpretation of legislation but on its validity. This is a dangerous area, and we need to be alert. We must ensure that we do not go any further in that direction.
	I turn now to the Government's response to the report. I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is inevitable that those who have the mandate from the public will seek to exercise it. After all, why else would the public have voted for them? My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West alluded to the problem that can then arise: which mandate takes precedence?

Angus MacNeil: There is a matter that we have perhaps not faced up to in the debate this afternoon. Would the right hon. Gentleman concede that without democracy, we should be left with the corrosive practice of patronage and worse, as we have seen from the Scotland Yard investigation that is going on at the moment? I would venture to suggest that the latest new year's honours list was almost a tacit admission of foul play within patronage.

John Spellar: That is a complete load of nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman saw fit, his party could have an Opposition day debate in which he could move that the House had no confidence in Her Majesty's Government. Under the American system, the Governmentand the Presidentare elected for four years and there is a balance of powers. Under our system, however, the Government live from day to day. That is inevitable, because the only basis for government under the Westminster parliamentary system is that the Government maintain a majority in the House of Commons. That is right and appropriate, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to change things, but he could not complain if he were unable to win such a vote. That is the crucial issue. If he is right and we are wrong, the public will change their mind at the next general election.
	Opposition Members have been criticising the Government for several years, but two elections have intervened since we first won power: in one we won an overwhelming majority, and in the other we won a substantial majority. The hon. Gentleman might be unhappy with the electorate about that and, like Bertolt Brecht and the central committee in The Workers Rehearse the Uprising, he might declare a lack of confidence in the people and a wish for the election of a new people. Under our system, however, the public can hold us to account at the general election, as his party has found: it has a little surge and gets a number of seats in Parliament, and then recedes again. It has returned with a few more seats, but never as many as it had at its peak.

Angus MacNeil: Surely if the right hon. Gentleman has any confidence and trust in the public, he will have no worries about allowing the public a democratic say in electing a second Chamber?

John Spellar: The problem with that is the need for clear lines of accountability, which is exactly the point to which I was coming. Under our system, the way in which not only a Parliament but a Government is elected is the same. If we have two elected Chambers, where do the Government come from? Which Chamber has the greater mandate? Which, for example, has the more recent mandate? We will come on to the slightly muddled views of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in a moment. If, for example, elections are held at different times, as happens in some countries that have off-peak elections, would those who opposed the Government claim that they had put their views to the electorate more recently, so they had a more recent mandate?
	Equally, we must consider what would happen if, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey suggested, we had a different electoral system. We know how the jihadists of the proportional representation movement endlessly claim that those elected under such a system are more representative. If the other place had a different system, which was more to their liking, would not they claim that it was more representative of public opinion? Is that a mechanism for getting clear decisions and clearly electing a Parliament and a Government?

David Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is arguing either for a unicameral legislature or for allowing people who are not elected to have some say in making the law of the land. Which is it?

John Spellar: Within the current conventions, the ability of the House of Lords to revise and to ask the Commons to think again, as outlined in the report, demonstrates that the public ultimately choose a Government, who decide. We can be asked to think again, which can create public embarrassment and put democratic pressure on us. That is what the Parliament Act says: ultimately, we can decide. The conventions say that the doomsday button does not have to be pressed every time in order for the Government, finally, to secure their business.

David Howarth: I am asking a more fundamental question: what entitles that group of people in the other place to have that right, as opposed to any other group of people?

John Spellar: There are a variety of means by which people come to that Chamber. They are nominated by the various political parties. Those parties have the ability to nominate through being represented here, so they derive their authority from the electorate. Equally, it has possibly been generally agreed that it is desirable to have people who are distinguished in their fields; even the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey argued for that. That would not necessarily mean that they were instantly electable under any system, but it might be of advantage to have their specialities represented, perhaps through having a variety of Cross Benchers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton commented on methods of achieving that, and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey praised the efforts of such Members. I might have some differences of view on that; I might think that they were trying to thwart the views of the electorate, who clearly wanted us to take effective action. However, a system of divided mandates and a variety of mandates is a different matter, as was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
	According to the Clerk of the Parliaments,
	The introduction of an elected element would undermine this as the House could begin to claim an electoral mandate. It can be argued that the greater the proportion of elected members the stronger the mandate. If the Lords were elected by a proportional system they might even claim a superior mandate.
	We should not disregard that thought lightly. It is a serious danger, and one about which we need to be clear.

Nicholas Winterton: It has been asked why such people should sit in the House of Lords. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that many of those appointed to the House of Lords come from many important walks of life such as the arts, industry, the theatre, the trade unions, science, academia and the financial services? In an amending Chamber, their expertise can add a huge amount to legislationthe good legislation that we hope will emanate from Parliament.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and other senior figures in the armed forces, as well as members of the diplomatic corps. They also make a significant contribution.
	Then there is the question of what we are able to enshrine. I missed some of the context, but the Leader of the House spoke of guarantees. There are no guarantees, because no Parliament can bind its successor. The Lord Chancellor conceded as much only yesterday, when he said:
	Neither this House nor any political party can bind the House for the future. Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2007; Vol. 688, c. 578.]
	That is true, and it demonstrates that pressure from those who claim legitimacy, aided and abetted by many of their supporters outside in the media, will inevitably start to move in the direction that I have described.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead spoke of many different ways of electing people to the House of Lords. She referred to an 80 per cent. proportion of elected Members, and also to all those elected being independent Members. I do not know whether that observation was frivolousperhaps the right hon. Lady's language is becoming as flamboyant as her dressbut it certainly suggested rather a year zero approach to Parliament. The right hon. Lady would not let me intervene on her, but I invite her to intervene on me to say whether what she said represents the view of the official Opposition.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. As I am sure the  Hansard report will make clear, I did not say that everyone elected to the House of Lords should sit as an independent. However, I think it would be an advantage for some Members to be independent, because that would help to ensure that the House of Lords contained people from a variety of backgrounds, not just party politicians. That is my view.

John Spellar: I find it difficult to understand the idea of such a mechanism in a democracy. How, in a democracy, can it be prescribed that those who will be elected by the public will, as of right and by definition, must be independents?

Theresa May: I did not suggest an element of prescription at any point. I would like some people to be elected as independents, and I hope that that will be the outcome in the event of an elected House of Lords.

Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Lady has failed to meet my right hon. Friend's challenge. The electorate are sovereign. We have a House of Commons that contains two independent Members, one of them a Labour Member who was elected because of a row in the Labour party in south Wales. That does not offer a very promising prognosis for the substantial number of independents who the right hon. Lady is sure will be elected to the House of Lords.

John Spellar: I am afraid that I must correct my right hon. Friend. In fact the House of Commons has three independents, one of whom was elected as a Labour Member and then ratted on that commitment.
	Let me conclude by explaining why the subject under discussion matters, and what the underlying issue is. We must have a clear understanding of parliamentary democracy and how it works. As I have said, there are differences between the British and American parliamentary systems. The American system elects an executive leader. It also elects two Houses that are representative and which, although they are the legislature, also provide the balance of powers. It also has an independent Supreme Courtalthough interestingly, membership of it is subject to appointment by the President and ratification by the Senate. In our system, the election of Members to this House decides the Government. Therefore, inevitably, the position of the House of Lords in relation to the House of Commons is different from that of the US Senate in relation to the House of Representatives.
	It is crucial that people clearly understand how they can change policy or change the Government. Measures that take authority away from this House and give it to quangos or unelected judges, and measures that divide the democratic mandate so that it is unclear who is to be held accountable, are not recipes for good government. Instead, they are recipes for democratic frustration, and that is when people start to become attracted to extremist parties. When people do not have a clear idea of how to exercise their rights, they either drop out of the political process into apathy or they start to vote for extremist parties.
	That is why the Joint Committee report is right to say that if we change the nature of the House of Lords, that will inevitably have an impact and we will have to re-examine the conventions. The Government response does not properly address that fact, although it is good in other respects.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), both of whom made excellent and sensible speeches.
	The key words in the admirable Joint Committee report are those in paragraph 61 that have not been quoted as often as others. In paying tribute to Committee members for working extremely hard on behalf of all MembersI am grateful to them for thatI draw attention to the words:
	We have interpreted our remit as being to define the present reality.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea and the right hon. Member for Warley both quoted the Clerk of the Parliaments and Roger Sands, who gave evidence that if that present reality is changed, we will face a new reality. If we approve the report this afternoonI approve of itit is important that we recognise that it applies only to the current relationship between the two Houses as they are currently constituted.
	There is an admirable and logical casealthough I do not agree with itfor saying that we should have a written constitution and two elected Houses. There is no case at all in logic for a hybrid House; that is the worst of all worlds. However, there is a case for having an elected second Chamber, but we must not delude ourselves into saying that that would be the House of Lords; it would not. Any move towards that is, in effect, a move towards the abolition of the House of Lords as it currently exists and its replacement by something else.
	If that were to happen, conventions could, of course, be established, and it might be the wish of the Leader of the House, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and others, that this House should retain its primacy. I would share in that wish if that unfortunate sequence of events were to unfold, but neither I nor the Leader of the House, nor my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader, nor anyone else in this Chamber or outside it, could have any ultimate control.
	The Father of the House spoke very wisely when he talked about the unintended consequences of devolution. I was one of those who were very reluctant to support devolution. I do not want the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) to jump up and ask, Do I accept a Scottish Parliament now? Of course I do. I am not one of those who think that we can un-invent things; it is there, and we have a Welsh Assembly. I remind Members that if my party had handled things rather better immediately after 1979, we might not be where we are now, but that is another story.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequerour possible future Prime Ministeris now making an impassioned plea for the United Kingdom, with which I wholly concur. However, he is doing so without recognising that it is the creature that his Government createdthe Scottish Parliamentthat has, in turn, created this crisis for the United Kingdom. I deeply regret that. I do celebrate 300 years of Union and I should like to see 300 and more years ahead. I merely use this analogyas, indeed, the Father of the House didto say to the House that if we move down the road of an elected or partially elected House of Lords, we will have a creature that we cannot ultimately control. Men and women of real quality and ability may aspire to it, but they will be able to do so, and to have a realistic chance of being elected to it, only if they have a party label. Then, they will legitimately want to have real powers. Alternatively, there will be the worst of all situationsmy right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House dismissed this view out of hand, but we should nota second Chamber that is so cribbed, cabined, confined and constrained in its powers that nobody of any worth or substance will want to sit in it.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend allow me?

Patrick Cormack: Very briefly.

John Bercow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Given that he is envisaging a new scenario and warning against change at least in part on the ground that its consequences will be unpredictable, why is he making the one exception that allows him so confidently to predict that in this revised arrangement only a tiny number of independents would be elected? With the greatest of respect to my hon. Friend, who is immensely distinguished, how can he know, any more than I or my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) can know?

Patrick Cormack: Of course none of us knows. The point has been made extremely effectively by others in this debate that, once we give to the electorate the opportunity of electing a body, they can elect whomsoever they choose. All that I would say to my hon. Friend, whose linguistic and forensic skills I greatly admire, is that all precedent teaches us that it is very difficult to get a goodly number of independents elected. In this House, we always have one independentMr. or Madam Speakerbut in all the 10 Parliaments in which I have sat, we have not had 10 independent Members in all. We have from time to time had one or two, sometimes as a result of an extraordinary circumstancea falling out in a constituency, for example, which was why Mr. Bell came herebut we have never had a body of independents.
	I do not want to pursue this one and nor do I want to detain the House for long. I have to give the House an apologyMr. Speaker knows this, as does Mr. Deputy Speakerin that I am chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at 5 o'clock. As Members in all parts of the House will recognise, I will be about the House's business and have to do that, so I shall not trespass on the House by taking more than another couple of minutes.
	The point that I wish to emphasise is the one that I have made, I hope reasonably clearly. I welcome the report, which is a brilliant description of, and definition of, the existing conventions. Those conventions have beenperhaps surprisinglywarmly welcomed and endorsed by the Government. I welcome that. But they apply only to the present reality. We will have an opportunitythe Leader of the House suggested that it would be in the spring, either just before or after Easterto debate proposals that will give us the chance to say whether we want an elected or partially elected Chamber. If we go down that route, these conventions will die. New conventions will evolve. The circumstances and relationships will be different.
	If the new Chamber that would replace the House of Lords is to have any worth or substance at allbecause it has people of worth and substance in itit will sooner or later aspire to real power. That will challenge the primacy of this House. I accept unreservedly the definition of primacy given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, but like him I entered the House of Commons because I believed passionately in it and its primacy. We live in a very sophisticated democracy and the historic evolution of our system means that we have in the second Chamber, partly by accident and partly by design, a greater accumulation of experience, wisdom and expertise than in any other Chamber in the world. To quote the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has temporarily left his place, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That slogan was also used by Lord Howe of Aberavon in the other place in his excellent speech yesterday.
	Let us read the White Paper thoroughly, digest it and debate it thoroughly, but we should be under no illusion that if we adopt election for the second Chamber, we will fundamentally, absolutely and permanently alter the nature of our Parliament and the relationship between the two Houses.

Andrew Miller: This is probably only the third time in 15 years in the House that I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). One never knows, there may be a fourth time in the future.
	If I had been asked 20 years ago, I would probably have argued unambiguously in favour of a fully elected second Chamber. However, after some years in this place, I started to realise that the relationship between the two Houses is much more complex than is perceived from outside. I reached the view that it was important that we had the sort of debate in which I was delighted to participate during the work of the Joint Committee.
	In the last debate in the House, with the curious voting system that was presented to us, I decided that because the debate was taking place in a vacuumwe were debating the structure of the House of Lords without considering its purposeI chose to vote for abolition, not because I was a unicameralist particularly, but because it was illogical to debate structure without debating purpose.

Fraser Kemp: My hon. Friend mentioned the curious voting system that we had last time. Does he agree that whatever options are put before the House, it is important that we have the chance to reject all the options if we do not find any of them satisfactory?

Andrew Miller: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, although I am not sure whether we share the same views on the issue. It is absolutely critical that we examine all the options in such a fundamental change to our structure of governance.

John Bercow: The intervention from the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), and the hon. Gentleman's response to it, seemed to me to be shots across the bows of the Government. Am I right in supposing that the Government's intention is to ensure that any votes that are held will lead to a definitive conclusion about the form of change?

Andrew Miller: I am not sure that the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) was intended to be a shot across the Government's bows. He and I are both devout party loyalists, but sometimes we point out to Front-Bench colleagues that complicated matters facing the House can be explored in different ways.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) expressed concern that preferential voting was becoming a convention, and it is true that, once a system is in place, it tends to become regarded as a given. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House acknowledged that part of his engagement in cross-party discussions involves talking to the bishops. There may be a historical explanation for the bishops' representation in the House of Lords, but there is no logical one. Even so, they are there, and so my right hon. Friend has to talk to them.
	Incidentally, if that debate leads the bishops to invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that all faiths are represented in the House of Lords, I might have more faith in the faiths. However, my point is that the ground rules that are in place at any given time will determine where a debate will lead.
	In an intervention earlier, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made an observation about the scrutiny process that needs to be corrected. I do not think that he intended to make a party political point, but he will know that the Committee looked at each Session from 1980 to the present to see how many Bills took more than 61 days. The length of time taken cannot be attributed to any particular Government

Nicholas Winterton: indicated assent.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. The number of Bills taking more than 61 days has risen inexorably, from none in 1980-81 to 13 in the period to May in the 2005-06 Session. The average number of days spent on each Bill has also risen inexorably, from 36 in 1980-81 to 63 in the period to May in 2005-06.
	Those figures may not have a direct bearing on this debate, but they give us some food for thought. The hon. Member for Macclesfield is a member of the Modernisation Committee, and I hope that it will look at the tables carefully, as they raise serious questions about how we examine the complex Bills that come before us. That might lead us to a view about how amendments ought to be tabled and debated, but it should not impinge on or determine our views about the structure of the other place. That is an important point.

John Bercow: I think I agree with the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has just reachedthat the scrutiny of legislation should not be dependent on, linked to or the result of a particular structure for the other place. However, in reflecting on the way in which we and the other place scrutinise legislation does he agree that we need to deduce from that not only that we might do our jobs better, but that there are issues and challenges for the parliamentary draftsmen, too? We have a responsibility to look at the sausage factory as well as at the sausages that emerge.

Andrew Miller: Indeed. It could be argued that more time should be given at the outset to ensure that drafting is correct. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am in favour of greater use of pre-legislative scrutiny, which would help to reinforce some of the processes that can get muddled, resulting in some of the ping-pong issues and in measures drifting down to the Lords that have not been properly debated in this place. We can get those things right in the existing structure.
	I want to move on to primacy. There have been adequate exchanges about the gentle contradiction between paragraph 61 of our report and the Government's response, so I shall not detain the House too much on that point. However, it seems axiomatic that as changes are introduced, the nature of the relationship will change. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and some Labour Members have observed that we need to accept that there will be a change. I do not intend to debate whether we should have a written constitution, as I doubt you would allow me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but can we guarantee primacy without one? The House needs to have that serious debate.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may say that the issues can be defined and codified, but that would be quite difficult without first defining the structure and purpose of the upper House. There is a complex interrelationship between the protection of primacy and the nature of the second Chamber and how it is formed. We cannot see the process as a series of simple steps; they are complex and interrelated.
	There have been exchanges about the inequality of representatives. Can we have an elected Member of Parliament who is unequal? In this House, we fight vigorously to protect the concept that we are all equal Members of Parliament, and so it should remain. However, in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, where list systems are in operation, there are debates about whether all Members are equal, as there are about the relationship between us and our regional Members of the European Parliament.
	I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been as annoyed as I have been from time to time to have a Liberal Democrat MEP describe himself as, in my case, the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, or, in his case, the Member for Blackburn. It might be a matter of semantics, but that MEP is not the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. He does not have the same mandate as I have. There will inevitably be pressuresas there are in cases such as thaton elected Members of an upper House to claim equality with the rest of us.
	My right hon. Friend was kind enough to write to members of the Committee in December. He welcomed the report, described it as significant and thanked us for our role. I am extremely grateful for that letter, but I want to bring one word in it to his attention. He is a distinguished parliamentarian and was an eminent lawyer, and he chooses words extremely carefully. He says:
	The Government believes however, that further reform should not alter the current role of the House of Lords as a revising and scrutinising chamber, nor should it alter the balance of the relationship between the Lords and Commons.
	What does the word should mean? Does it mean that, in his judgment, further reform will not alter things, or that it cannot? I think that it is probable that further reform will alter things. Paragraph 61 makes it quite clear that the Committee believes that there will be a change. The question that we need to address, whatever conclusion the House comes to in subsequent debates, is: how can we protect the primacy of this House? Members on both sides of the House need work on that so that, whatever the outcome of the subsequent debate about structures, we protect that primacy, which the Government say should not be altered, but which will be altered, whether we like it or not.

Nicholas Winterton: It was a great honour to be one of three Conservative and Unionist Members who were appointed by the House to serve on the Joint Committee on Conventions. I found it an uplifting experience and one that taught me a great deal about what goes on in the House of Lords. Although I am prepared to confess to the House that I have long been a supporter of the House of Lords and the role that it plays in our constitution and in the way in which Parliament holds the Government of the day to account and scrutinises legislation, I have to say that, at every sitting of the Committee, I became more and more convinced that the House of Lords, as it is currently comprised, fulfils a valuable and important role. I became more and more convinced that my personal instincts about the House of Lords were merely strengthened by the evidence that was given to the Joint Committee.
	May I pay my personal tribute to Lord Carter? I knew him before I started to attend the Joint Committee, of which he was a leading member from the House of Lords, but I got to know him a lot better during its sittings. I found him to be an informed, kind and constructive member of the Committee. I thus join in the tributes that have been paid to him for the role that he played in Parliament as a leading member of the Government party in the House of Lords. He made a major contribution to the debates that took place and the production of the Joint Committee's report.
	Perhaps I have established the fact that I do not wish to see any change in the composition of the House of Lords whatsoever. Although we are debating the report of the Joint Committee, which the Government recommend that we welcome with approval, inevitably, as all the speeches made so far have clearly shown, we must refer to what the future of the House of Lords might be. I am sad that the Leader of the House is not in the Chamber. He is working hard in search of consensus on plans for so-called reform of the House of Lords.
	A core question at the heart of the debate is that of whether the second Chamber should have an elected element. I fully endorse and support the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar). I also fully support the views expressed by perhaps the most experienced man in the House, the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). He built on the excellent argument put forward by a man who has been a Member for almost four decades: the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has been a Minister.
	The more one examines the prospect of an elected element in the House of Lords, the stranger the whole idea becomes. Perhaps significantly, all the parties whose leaderships have been calling for yet more elections, in this case elections to the House of Lordsalthough this has not been mentioned in the debate, it has been pointed out by my noble Friend Lord Howe of Aberavonhave been piling up debts because of their inability to finance their existing election campaigns.
	Again, no one has yet mentioned the amount that a partially or completely elected House of Lords would cost. We would not only have to pay the elected Members, however many there might be, but have to pay out huge sums to the staff and researchers whom such elected Members would inevitably demand as of right. We know the extent to which expenses and allowances have increased in this House in recent times. If the public were really to debate the matter, I wonder whether they would be happy to pick up a large sum by way of the taxes that they have to pay to meet the cost of Members of the House of Lords. At present, Members of the House of Lords receive only reasonable expenses. I will say one thing about the House of Lords that I would say in front of any audience: by goodness, we get value for money from the upper House.
	In an intervention on the right hon. Member for Warley, I sought to point out how much expertise there is in the other House. Perhaps there are a number of people whose presence there might well be questioned, but overwhelmingly the people who sit in the House of Lords provide valuable experience and expertise. They have skills and talents that they bring to the scrutiny of legislation.
	I should like to lay a myth to rest: even the Prime Minister has said that it is wrong that an unelected House should legislate. The House of Lords is not a legislature, but an amending and delaying Chamber. When the House of Lords sends amendments back to the Commons, it gives this House, which often passes legislation over-hastily, and in some cases actually unscrutinised, a second opportunity to look again at such legislation. To return to the cost of elections, there will be, perhaps shortly, a proposal that party campaign funds should receive much larger subsidies from hard-pressed taxpayersthat is, if we go ahead with the election of Members to the House of Lords. I wonder what the public would think about that.
	I shall quote from an article by Lord Howe of Aberavon, who I mentioned earlier. He is a leading Member of the other place and a past Secretary of State, who held many important offices in Government. He said:
	The removal, in 1999, of all but a handful of hereditaries has established a chamber in which neither major party has more than 30 per cent of the seats; the remainder are Lib Dems or crossbenchers, in much larger number; and the bulk of the membership of the entire House is dominated by diversity, expertise, experience and independence.
	That picks up the remarks that I made a few moments ago.
	As a Member of this House, I can say that there have been occasions in recent timesincluding under a Conservative Government, but more frequently under a Labour Governmentwhen the feelings, aspirations, and expectations of the people of this country have been more accurately and properly represented in debates in the House of Lords than in debates in the House of Commons. That is a sad criticism of this place. As Lord Howe says, in the other House:
	To win a vote you have to secure, by persuasion, a majority of the 40 per centrather like addressing a special jury. But the Lords' role is, in the last resort, advisory and not decisive.
	It is wrong for Liberal Members to talk about democracy, when in fact the other place is an amending and delaying Chamber, a Chamber that gives this House a second chance to consider legislation that was perhaps over-hastily and rather badly drafted when it first went to the other House.

David Howarth: Does the hon. Member not accept that the House of Lords is part of the legislative process? The Members of the House of LordsLloyd George once said of them that they were 500 men chosen at random from among the ranks of the unemployedhave a place in the law-making process that no other group of people has.

Nicholas Winterton: Indeed, the Lords are not democratically elected, but I do not think there is any harm in that, given the role that they play in our democracy. Like other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) discussed the primacy of the Commons. Final decisions are made in this Chamberwe pick up the tab at the end of the day, and we have the final decision on legislationbut we consult members of the House of Lords who have a particular talent, skill or experience. Without intending any disrespect to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), people who have recently come to serve in the House are career politicians, with little or no experience of anything other than politics. They probably went to college before becoming researchers, then advisers and assistants, and then standing as parliamentary candidates before entering the House. They do not have any experience of the real world, but I am grateful to have such experience, as I had to earn a living in the construction industry and I served as a county councillor. I speak, too, as someone with experience of procedure. I chaired the Procedure Committee for eight years, but I ran out of time which is whyand I am slightly disappointed about thisI am not chairing it today. I was an original member of the Modernisation Committee, and we have accepted many of its proposals to update, modernise and improve the way in which the House operates and deals with legislation.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend's track record is exemplary, and it speaks for itself. Some people may even think that if the day comes when he chooses no longer to serve as an MP, because he wishes to retireI do not look forward to that day, and I hope that it is a long way offhe would be a very suitable Member of the other place.

Nicholas Winterton: I decline to make any comment or observation on that proposal. The only thing that I will say concerns the role of the House of Lords. From my limited experience of debates in the second Chamber, but encouraged by my experience of the Joint Committee, I believe that it is a very civilised place in which to operate.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend is making a bid.

Nicholas Winterton: I am not making a bid, but I am not not making a bid. However, I greatly admire the other place.
	May I respond to a point made by the Father of the House, who mentioned the number of votes that the Government lost in the Lords and the Lords amendments that the Commons were consequently obliged to consider, by giving some statistics? Between 1999 and 2005, the Government suffered almost 300 defeats in the House of Lords, but in four cases out of 10, the Commons, and thus the Government, accepted the result. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West rightly cited a figure of 40 per cent., so is there not a great deal of wisdom, good sense and good work in the House of Lords? Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have unlimited admiration and regard, I think it is a good thing that the Government welcome and approve the report by the Joint Committee on Conventions.
	As we went through those conventions, there was nothing that led me to believe that at any stage the House of Lords was denying the primacy of the House of Commons or seeking to undermine it. They accepted it and they carried out their work bearing that in mind. The Salisbury-Addison convention was not only honoured to the letter, so to speak, of an unwritten obligation and responsibility, but in many cases applied to non-manifesto legislation that was introduced by the Government of the day.
	On reasonable time, another of the conventions, as I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Leader of the House, part of the problem of the Lords taking what might seem an abnormal amount of time to deal with Bills from this place is familiar to me as a member of the Chairmen's Panel chairing Standing Committees, many of which will be Public Bill Committees from the beginning of this year. I pick up the semi-criticism that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston levelled against me relating to the intervention on my right hon. Friend.
	Under successive Governments, whether as a result of guillotines and timetable motions or, under this Government, programming motions, Bills have gone from this House to the House of Lords with large sections of the legislation undebated and undiscussed. Surely that cannot be right. The House of Lords has a constitutional right to take time properly to debate every clause and every subsection of every clause in the Bills that we send through to them.
	On the matter of the exchange of amendments between the Houses, affectionately known as ping-pong, again there has been good sense on virtually every occasion that ping-pong has taken place. At the end of the day, the primacy of this House has been upheld.

David Heath: I cannot entirely stay with the hon. Gentleman's argument when he says that good sense has prevailed in the process of ping-pong. Having been involved in far too many rounds of ping-pong for my own good in various home affairs and justice Bills, I know that the process is often extremely flawed because there is no recognition of the value of each House's consideration, no respect for each House's consideration, and no attempt at reconciliation of views, which ought to be an essential part of the process.

Nicholas Winterton: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the report, we suggested that there should be improvements in the way that the process was dealt with. I entirely share the view that if the House gets an amendment back from the House of Lords, it is important that it knows why the Lords disagreed with the Commons, and similarly, when the Bill goes back to the Lords, it is important that the upper House knows why the Commons disagreed with the Lords amendment.
	On secondary legislation, I support my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. There is a serious problem in the way the House deals with secondary legislation. I know that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, the Father of the House, who chairs the Liaison Committee with distinction, is more than aware that the procedures in the House to deal with secondary legislation are totally inadequate. I am disappointed that the Procedure Committee's recommendation that the Lords and Commons should have a Joint Committee to deal with certain matters relating to secondary legislation was not accepted by the Government. I hope that they will reconsider that and recognise that secondary legislation is inadequately dealt with in this House.
	On financial privilege, the House of Lords fully appreciates its limited role in respect of finance. Yes, it can deal with matters of administration, but it cannot deal in any way with policy. That is appropriate. This House deals with matters relating to money, finance and taxation. The Committee unanimously concluded that codification, which the Government had wanted [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is a very gracious, courteous, amusing man who is held in great respect in all parts of the House

Jack Straw: There must be a but.

Nicholas Winterton: Yes, indeed. But he knows that the Government would have liked the conventions of the House of Lords to be codifiedthat is, put down in black and white. That would have destroyed the unique relationship that exists between this House and the House of Lords and be greatly to the disadvantage of both Houses.

William Cash: I hope that my hon. Friend understands that 20 of us forced a Division on 10 May precisely because we found this whole business such a charade.

Nicholas Winterton: I greatly admire my hon. Friend's dedication and expertise in these matters and fully appreciate why he was one of 20 Members who voted against the provision.
	I ask the Leader of the House to proceed very carefully. I do not believe that any element of election in the House of Lords will improve the way in which it scrutinises legislation that we put out from this House, and have the final say on in this House, for the benefit of the people of the United Kingdom. I hugely admire the value for money that we get from the House of Lords. I fully support a system that enables people from every walk of lifethe services, trade unions, industry, arts, theatre, academiato go to the House of Lords, where they can use their expertise to help the House of Commons, which, sadly, is becoming a House of professional career politicians, to do the job that we are here to do on behalf of every man, woman and child in this country. The House of Lords plays a valuable role in thatit does not need fixing.

Tony Wright: Before I make a few observations on the Joint Committee's report, let me respond directly to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who echoed much of what other Members have said during the debate. I should like to tell him a little story. A few years ago, my Government brought a measure before us with which I was not wholly happy and for which I did not vote. The hon. Member for Macclesfield nods. Then it went to the Lords, where it was improved and came back in a form with which I was happy. The Government decided to overturn the amendment from the Lords. I received a call from the Chief Whip's office. A conversation ensued along the following lines: These people aren't elected you know. I replied, I know that. What's more, I know that you don't want them to be elected. We were then mysteriously cut off.
	The point of the story is that we must ensure that the second Chamber performs a function for us that we want it to undertake, and it must have sufficient authority to do that. Then, when I or someone else gets such a call, we can explain not why the House of Lords should get its waywe have the ability to get our way, and that is rightbut that the second Chamber must have enough authority to ensure that we take it seriously. Otherwise, why have it?
	I caution against the fear that lurks behind many of the contributions today. There is a spectre at the feastthe fear of creating a monster, which will affect the way in which we do business. That spectre was glimpsed in the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield and in the fears that have been expressed about election. It was glimpsed in the speech of my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who spoke of a creature that we cannot control. Does that mean that we want a creature that we can routinely control? Those are false opposites.
	We want a creature that does a job for us to enable us to increase the scrutiny that takes place in Parliament. That is what we want the second Chamber to do for us. Then, it becomes a question of how we constitute the second Chamber so that it can do that. There are suggestions for constituting itincluding for electionthat would make that harder. If we created, through a certain sort of electoral arrangement, a second Chamber that was simply a replica of this Chamber, with the same party disciplines and lack of scrutiny, we would diminish, not improve, effective scrutiny in Parliament as a whole, even though we perhaps believed that election would achieve our goal. If one gets election wrong, it can enfeeble, not strengthen, a second Chamber.
	We have to be clear about what we want the institution to do for us and then design it so that it can do that. We could design it in a variety of ways to secure that objective. I caution hon. Members against simply repeating their old favourite mantras about why appointment or election is the only way. Let us be clear about what we want the institution to do in our system and ensure that we get the design features to produce that outcome.
	I believe, for what it is worth, that the composition of the upper House should be mixed. The previous Lord Chancellor recently told us that a hybrid House was a constitutional impossibility and I gather that the Prime Minister took a similar view. I am now delighted to learn that the Government appear to believe that a hybrid arrangement is possibly the only or most desirable way forward. We are therefore making some genuine progress. I urge us all to be sure about what we think is the objective of all thisand then to make sure that we get the design features that contribute to it.

William Cash: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the basic principle of the need for a significant proportionup to 80 per cent.to be elected, but does he agree that the question of controls, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) referred, also applies in the House of Commons because of the Whip system? There is a question there that the hon. Gentleman has not quite answered. Another problem is that we do not know what the term manifesto commitment means. I hope that I will have the opportunity to go further into that later, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are serious problems in all those areas?

Tony Wright: I think that there are problems in all those areas and I shall deal with the point about the manifesto in a few moments, but let me finish off my argument and make sure that it is clear.
	If we broadly accept what I have said, it is possible to argue for forms of election and forms of appointmentand for forms of mixtures of appointmentsto secure the objective. It is perfectly proper to argue that because the second Chamber is not going to have the final say, it does not need to be electedor, at least, elected in the way that the first Chamber is elected. However, it still needs to be so constituted that it has sufficient authority and legitimacy to be taken seriously by the House of Commons. Above all else, we have to be able to answer the question that goes to the heart of the matter for us and for the people we represent. In respect of the House of Lords, that question is, Who are these people? If we cannot answer that question in a way that makes some sort of democratic sense, we shall not finally be able to resolve the argument that has dogged us for so long.

John Bercow: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's analysis is essentially correct, as we must have a clear idea of what the new Chamber would doa crucial prerequisite of having an intelligible and intelligent discussion about the form of its composition. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, however, that some of those who conjure up lurid scenarios of constitutionally impossible hybrid forms are people who seem to want to be the authors of self-fulfilling prophecies. In fact, we need some compromise if we are to get an outcomeand they know that as well as he and I do.

Tony Wright: I am very sympathetic to that point. The argument is not helped by conjuring up imaginary monsters that are going to have all kinds of catastrophic consequences. Now is the moment for some clear thinking because, after a lot of difficulties along the way, we may finally have reached a moment to begin to get somewhere. We have got some of the arguments out of our system and if we can agree on what we want reform to doI happen to think that the Leader of the House is probably the person above all others to lead the House on the matterwe may be able to move forward sensibly with second Chamber reform.
	I would like to make a few further remarks prompted by the Joint Committee's report. I join all those who have paid tribute to the Committee for a very impressive piece of work. I thought it had been given an impossible task, but it has performed it heroically. It has juggled constitutional jelly in a way that I would have thought impossible to do in such an elegant form. The task was impossible because the Committee was asked to codify conventions, and the truth is that once conventions are codified, they cease to be conventions. The task was impossible, but within that impossibility the Committee has performed an extremely valuable service.
	Someone once famously said that our constitutional arrangements were based on a series of understandings, but the trouble was that no one quite understood what all the understandings were. That is the context in which we operate. That is why codifying these conventions is such an elusive and impossible task. We can, however, try to understand them a bit better, and the report has enabled us to do just that. It has enabled us to understand them on a deeper level than before. However, the Committee was given the task of telling us whether it would be practicable to codify the conventions, and it has come back and said that it would not. Well, we knew that anyway because that is the nature of conventions. If they were codifiable, they would not be conventions.
	The Committee has also told us that if there were to be a radical rearrangement of the second Chamber, all bets would be off in relation to these understandings and conventions. However, the Government have said that that is not true. They would like the understandings or conventions to remain the same. Various Members have pointed out the conflict between those two positions. Yes, there is a conflict between them, but it is perfectly possible for the Government to say that they would like the conventions to remain intact and to endure into a newly configured second Chamber. They cannot be certain that that would happen, but that is what they would like. That seems to be the only way of bringing the two positions together.
	I want to say a few words of congratulation and praise for a particular aspect of the Joint Committee's work, and for an aspect of the Government's response. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised a point about manifestos. The report helps us greatly on this matter. All the stuff that is said about manifestos and manifesto Bills is a kind of fiction. It might be a necessary and convenient fiction, but it is a fiction none the less, and we should acknowledge that. The fact is that we do not know why people vote for or against a particular Government.
	When we go to a supermarket, we load up our trolleys by taking things from all the different shelves. When we are presented with the various manifestos, it is rather like going to the supermarket and finding that the trolleys have already been filled up for us. We cannot say, Actually, I'd rather have something from this trolley, and something else from that one. It does not work like that. It is a take-it-or-leave-it kind of trolley. Yet, after the election, the winning party says, We have support for everything in our trolley. The fact is that we have no idea whether people voted for a party because it had adopted a particular policy, or despite the fact that it disliked another. But, in a sense, that does not matter. All that we know is that the Government have a mandate for governing.
	That affects our debate about the second Chamber. The Committee has suggested that we describe certain Bills as Government Bills, and that is an improvement, but I think that we should call them mandate Bills. That would reflect the fact that the Government had secured a mandate to govern and to introduce Bills, which should be respected in the second Chamber and reflected in the way in which it operates. I am pleased to see that proposal because it represents some truth and progress.
	I also very much like an aspect of the Government's response to the report. In fact, I would almost go so far as to say that this whole exercise has been worth while because of one sentence in paragraph 10, which states that
	overall our reforms have been designed to make Parliament as a whole more effective.
	If only we could have got that from the Government when they responded to the Wakeham commission, to the report from our Committee or to various other reports. This is a breakthrough because it represents an understanding that the purpose of all this is to improve the scrutiny of Parliament as a whole.

Nicholas Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is making a most interesting and philosophical speech, what he thinks the Government mean by that statement? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I am not sure precisely what pudding they are proposing.

Tony Wright: I mean what the Leader of the House referred to earlier when he talked about there being no zero-sum games. Up until this point, the belief has always been that if one makes one part of Parliament more effective, it will make another part less effective. That is simply a misunderstanding. The point is to make Parliament as a whole more effective. The Government are now saying that that is the point of what they are doing in relation to this House, which we have not really discussed but which is an important ingredient. If they are serious in wanting to make scrutiny here better, as I hope and believe that they are, that will contribute to that end. If we can secure a second Chamber that is more authoritative and legitimate, that will also contribute to it. Parliament as a whole will then become more effective at scrutiny. I take that to be a huge gain and a kind of breakthrough.
	We are making real progress. We want to preserve our tradition of strong, coherent, effective government, but we must match it with a much better system of strong, coherent and effective accountability. We must set up a second Chamber that is conspicuously a House of scrutiny, which does the kind of things at which this place, a House of government, driven by party, is not very good. This is the place that Government drives and where Government and Opposition meet. It is not the place where intensive scrutiny happens. We must strengthen scrutiny in our system by having a second Chamber that does that. If we do that, it ceases to be a threat. It is not a monster, a spectre; it is our ally in holding the Government to account. If we get that right, other things have the chance of falling into place.
	I thank the Government for giving me a chance to vote for a measure that has absolutely no consequences. This is a delightful moment, and I take full advantage of it.

Andrew Tyrie: I was very impressed by that speech, and agree with just about all of it. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and his Committee for having brought more light and less heat to this issue, which will be important when we debate it in the spring.
	It was a privilege to serve on the Joint Committee. I enjoyed it and learnt a lot. Some interesting submissions were made to it. I concluded pretty early, however, that this issue is a Westminster backwater. It is difficult to think of anything likely to excite less public interest than the codification of conventions.
	The story of what has happened since the Committee was set up can be simply told. The Government, armed with a manifesto pledge, wanted to pin down the existing self-imposed restraint on interference in the House of Lords by codifying and freezing it. They probably had a good go at trying to persuade Lord Cunningham, behind the scenes, to assist in that process.
	The manifesto called explicitly for a codification of conventions. Unfortunately, however, the Government did not get what they wanted; they failed. No substantive areas for codification were recommended. Codification itself was explicitly rejected. Let me quote a passage, which has not yet been quoted today, from paragraph 279 of the report:
	'codification' is unhelpful...Conventions...are unenforceable ...codifying conventions is a contradiction in terms.
	Instead, the Committee sensibly abandoned codification and restricted itself to producing various formulae to describe a number of conventions, at paragraph 283formulae, not codification. As far as I know, that point has so far gone entirely unremarked today.
	In the narrow sense that the Government's intention was to try to codify the existing conventions of the current House, they have clearly failed. They have also failed in a wider sense, in view of the much remarked paragraph 61. As the Committee made clear that its conclusions applied only to the current House, any attempt by the Government to use its work to bind a reformed House has failed. The Government were piqued by that, and produced a four-page response. The Leader of the House dwelt on that extensively today, encouraged to do so by a number of interventions.
	Paragraph 9 of the Government's response contains the key sentence:
	We believe the relationship the Joint Committee describes is one which should apply to any differently composed chamber.
	That must be wrong. Over time, a differently composed Chamber will want to re-examine its own conventions, and may decide to change them. No amount of passing resolutions or codifying conventions can alter that. However, I feel that the Government should not protest too much. They did not really need to include paragraph 9, for two reasons.
	First, it would be ludicrous to reconstitute the Cunningham Committee and have a Cunningham 3 on the first day of a reformed House of Lords. Any sensible person would agree that a passage of timewhich should perhaps be measured in Parliaments rather than yearsshould elapse before that becomes necessary. Secondly, in any case, if we haveas I sincerely hope we willa more democratic second Chamber, the key powers and restrictions that it tests will be not the conventions but the Parliament Acts.
	A reformed House, unlike the current House, may have the courage to use some of the real powers that it already has, particularly its power of delay and its power to reject statutory instruments. It does not use those powers now, for the simple reason that it does not have the moral authority to use them. A reformed House will have enough legitimacy to exercise the powers provided for it under the Parliament Acts, while also being restricted by them. I think it righthere I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Cannock Chasefor the House of Lords to be given that moral authority.
	I shall end by developing that point further, but first I want to make one more general point about the House of Lords as currently constituted, which I hope the other place will not consider offensive. I have enormous respect for Members of the House of Lords, a large proportion of whom are loyal and dedicated public servants, but it is an inescapable fact that whenever their Lordships debate themselves, Dr. Pangloss is out and about. He was certainly stalking the other Chamber yesterday. There was a great deal of talk about how effective the second Chamber already is, what a great job it does, and, by implication, how everything was already for the best in the best of all possible worlds. The truth is much more prosaic. We have the illusion of two-Chamber democracy, but we have the reality of something that is little more than unicameralism: a consultative assembly which, when push comes to shove, is usually too scaredeven in its somewhat reformed form since 1999, or whenever it wasto take on the Executive and use the powers that it currently possesses.

William Cash: I also happen to be in favour of a more directly elected House of Lords, but I take exception to my hon. Friend's implied comparison with the House of Commons, whose whipping arrangements, craven submission to Government and failure to scrutinise huge chunks of vastly important Bills suggest that, while we are perfectly entitled to criticise the other House, we ought also to consider the beam in our own eye.

Andrew Tyrie: I completely agree that we badly need reform of the way in which we scrutinise our House. One point that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase did not make that he might have made in talking about the balance between the two Chambers is that reform in the other place will probably stimulate reform here. I think that we will get a better working and functioning House of Commons, with those changes driven and forced through because of the fact that there will be some democratic competition between the Houses.
	When I make the point to my colleagues that we do not really have bicameralism now, a number of themI will not name them, but they are very thoughtful peoplesay to me, Absolutely, and thank goodness. The illusion suits us; it means that we can keep the power here and have that consultative and advisory body there, and we can get unicameralism by the back door. I vigorously disagree with that. I have always been in favour of having a strong Executivea Government who can get on with their job, and not be hamstrung all the time by gridlock in Parliamentbut I think that this Executive has become over-mighty. We must have some rebalancing of the constitution.
	To do that, we must reform the Commons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has just said, but we must also reform the Lords, and if we are to do that we must give the Lords some legitimacy. In the 21st century, only a largely elected Chamber can provide such legitimacy. That is why I will strongly support the Leader of House's efforts to bring democracy to the second Chamber, if what he proposes is a majority-elected House. The public want that. I have been sitting in my seat from the beginning of the debate, and as far as I am aware the public and their views have not been mentioned even once. Every time they have been consulted, the public have said that they want such a Chamberby majorities in the region of three to one or four to one.
	Democracy in the second Chamber is long overdue. It will not challenge the primacy of this House; we can debate that at great length in the spring, but I disagree with those who argue that it will. In a nutshell, we have the Parliament Acts and we have the source of government in this place, and the combination of those two forces will mean that this place will retain primacy. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that the nature of that primacy might change, but the fundamental elements of it will remain.
	Most importantly of all, if we have reform it will change not only the relationship between the Lords and the Commons, but the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and that is what Parliament as a whole now desperately needs.

David Howarth: I am the first speaker in this debate who is neither a member of the Committee nor a distinguished Member of the House of long standing, so perhaps all that I can bring to our discussionespecially at a time when all the good points have been made several timesis a little naive radicalism.
	I should start by saying that I was somewhat suspicious of the Committee, but I have been pleased by the result of its labours, especially on two points. The first of them is codification. I made my view on that clear in the debate in May, and I am glad that the Committee has reached a similar conclusion: that codification of conventions would rob those who wish to design new arrangements that work of an important tool that would allow flexibility in the development of the institutional arrangements that we need. Secondly, I am delighted with paragraph 61. In fact, it is that paragraph that will lead me to support the motion; if it had instead been on the Government response, I might have been in a different position.
	Paragraph 61 makes it clear that the conclusions that the Committee have come to have no relevance to a future situation involving a reformed House of Lords with an elected element. All the Committee is putting before us is its view of what the conventions are now. It is in the nature of those conventions that even that view is applicable only to now; the conventions will develop, even if the House of Lords is not reformed. I fully support that conclusion of the Committee, to which all its other conclusions are subject. So if there is any part of the report that I do not fully agree with or accept, I can console myself with paragraph 61, which removes any great problem.
	Other Members have said that in order to explain one's position on the report, it is important to explain where one is coming from on House of Lords reform. I want to make it clear that I come from the position of naive liberal democracy. I cannot see how it is justifiable for people who have not been democratically elected to have any part in the legislative process greater than that played by ordinary citizens. The question is not necessarily expertise, but a different one: why these experts and not other experts? We all know a lot of experts, most of whom are not Members of the House of Lords, so the question that arises is: how does one become a Member of the House of Lords, even if one is an expert? The answer under the present arrangements is far from clear, and is certainly not sufficient to justify having a special part in the legislative process. It is true that it is not as important a part as that exercised by those in this House; nevertheless it is a part, and one denied to the vast majority of citizens.
	For me, the important part of the report is the one that demonstrates that, in the end, not only all the conventions but the Parliament Act itself derive their force, reason and justification from the undemocratic nature of the present House of Lords. It is the gapthe difference between the two Housesthat justifies what in reality are conventions that explain the House of Lords' self-restraint. There is no doubt that the House of Lords has many legal powers that it does not exercise. That is because of the conventions, and because it accepts those conventions.
	If we move beyond the current situation and consider a reformed House of Lords, the question that the Government have to answer is: what new reason, which has nothing to do with the gap in democratic legitimacy between the two Houses, would justify those conventions of self-restraint? It would be incrediblean amazing coincidenceif precisely the same conventions turned out to be justified by any new reason for a difference between the two Houses. I cannot see how that could be the case.

William Cash: There is a potential reason, which I have given in the past. If the future House of Lords, albeit up to 80 per cent. elected, had different functions, particularly on the constitutional front, was elected through a different, regional arrangement andas some might suggestby a different system of election, there would be a sufficient reason for the exercising of self-restraint, which is a word that I would have used myself, had I had a chance to speak. That is the key element that would be necessary, precisely because the taxing powersthe fundamental governmental powers that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) referred toare the distinguishing feature that provide the basis for the primacy of this House of Commons.

David Howarth: The key pointthis comes back to comments made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)is that we need to explain why we have different Houses. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has given some possible reasons for having different functions in different Houses. When we have established those reasons, the conventions of self-restraint, or otherwise, between the Houses will flow from them. The conventions that we have now are the result of the difference in democratic legitimacy.
	It has been interesting to hear accounts of the 1911 Act, which was passed to achieve the primacy of this House. That was the historic achievement of that Government and that Parliament. However, the intention was not to leave the situation as it was. The intention was to return with democratic reform of the House of Lords. The preamble to the Act made clear the need to start anew in thinking about what conventionswhat form of self-restraintwould be necessary for the new situation.
	One thing that has bothered me during the debateI suppose that it is the result of being a new Member of Parliament who is not used to the conventions of thought in the Houseis the apparent assumption that being elected to form a Government automatically entitles the people who are so elected to have their way, above any other body that stands in their way. That doctrine should be thought through, especially if the other House were to have any democratic legitimacy.
	Given the nature of the electoral system used to elect this House, under which Governments can have overall majorities with 36 per cent. of popular support, it would be as much of an affront to the democratic ideal to say that the Government in this House should automatically get their way over the other Houseif that were elected by a proportional systemas it would be now for the House of Lords to claim primacy over this Chamber. The difficulty is one of legitimacy, which can be resolved in the long term only by ensuring that this House retains, if not an edge, at least an equality of representativeness with the other place.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: There may be a misunderstanding here. What is important in any Parliament, especially an elected Parliament, is that the Government of the day have the right to introduce their major Bills and to press the issues that they think are important. However, in this House as in any other, it is essential that we understand that Governments do not automatically have the right to put them on the statute book. The whole purpose of both Houses is to try to prevent bad laws. That is why the majority of elected Members have a responsibility to scrutinise closely not only the legislation introduced by their Government, but the suggestions of others. If we deny that, we deny the whole purpose of a Parliament coming together.

David Howarth: I fully accept what the hon. Lady says, but as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, we have to accept the limitations of this place. There is a fundamental problem with having high expectations of scrutiny and deliberation in a House whose main function is to make or break Governments. What appears on the surface to be this House's great strengthits very power to make or break Governmentsis also a source of weakness. The strength of the whipping system comes down to the power that the Government have to take away all our jobs by calling an election.
	The problem is that scrutiny in this House often falls short. It goes a good distance, but in the end stops short of saying no, because ultimately, the only way to do that is to destroy the Government. Normally, no one on the Government Benches would be prepared to do something that has happened only once in my lifetime, at the end of the 1970s.
	That problem can be resolved by establishing a new set of reasons for having a bicameral legislature, which would be compatible with having elections for the membership of both Chambers. That solution is very similar to the one proposed by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, but it would be essential to ensure that the ability to make or break Governments was concentrated in one Chamber. It must not infect both.
	That function of making or breaking Governments belongs in this House. It is our main and fundamental function, and it justifies giving more scrutiny of legislation and spending to the other place, as long as it is elected. What form of relationship will develop between an elected Chamber whose main function is the making and breaking of Governments, and another elected Chamber whose main function is to scrutinise legislation and policy? The answer to that question will not emerge today, but only at the end of a long historical process.
	To what extent do a Government need to get their way in the face of an unpopularity that can be expressed in a more representative House? How effective do a Government need to be when an opinion poll might show that a certain Bill would not get through? That is the balance that we have to strike.
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase also mentioned manifestos and mandates, and what he said about package deals was absolutely right. We do not know why people vote for particular parties, but we do know that they do not know much about manifestos. Some of the academic evidence given to the Committee suggested that, when people are asked under what circumstances they think that an unreformed House of Lords should be entitled to throw out Government proposals, they do not respond by asking about what was in the manifesto. They do not care much about that; indeed, they do not respond in political terms, but purely according to whether the measure involved strikes them as good or bad. In other words, their answer depends entirely on the popularity of a particular provision.
	In the end, we must move towards the balance that is necessary in all political systems. It is a balance between the ability of a Government to govern, and the ability of a people to prevent that Government from carrying forward policies with which they fundamentally disagree. To my own surprise, I support the motion. I thank the Joint Committee for saving us from going down a number of routes along which we certainly should not travel.

Richard Shepherd: I am pleased to follow the previous three speakers, and I am grateful to them for elevating this debate. The teasing amendment on the Order Paper was tabled because we felt that the Government were complimenting the Joint Committee through gritted teeth, as it did not produce the result that they wanted. That is why I cheer.
	Anyway, I cheer any Joint Committee that refers to Hood Phillips and to Constitutional and Administrative Law. It reminds us that this and the other House are ancientthe very foundations of our constitution. Even those of us who half-heartedly studied university courses on the constitution know that its fundamental purpose and statement is the sovereignty of Parliament. Of course people such as me say that that is a valid and virtuous doctrine, because in the democratic age the sovereignty of Parliament is shorthand for the sovereignty of the people.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) for putting the Parliament Act 1911 into perspective. It was a temporary measure. At the time, it was clear to everyone that the Lords would move to a democratic basis.
	I think about the course taken by this country, of which we are the representative voice. Its history is ancient. There have always been two Chambers and they have always tussled and fought, but the balance, over a long time, came to this Chamberthe Commonsto the people of England, as opposed to a landed interest, a dynastic system, a creation of patronage and a hereditary principle. The primacy of the Lords became constitutionally indefensible. Popular feeling and the ability to reach people to make arguments and to affect Government grew. We accept no divine right of kings. This House brought to an end the concept that a person can by right of birth be a member of a legislature.
	It seems absolutely extraordinary that anyone could countenance the fact that a legislator in a democracy is not accountable to the people for whom they make laws. The people who bear the laws must be able to hold to account those who make them. That is such a fundamental point that I am startled that a Labour Governmentas Mr. Kinnock would have saidcould countenance even the thought of the sidelining ways in which the Prime Minister frustrated Robin Cook's genuine attempt to move towards a largely elected second Chamber. It was almost a repudiation of the genesis of the Labour party.
	The conflict between the two Houses does not chill me. It is a dynamic that reinforces the people. We all have different views about what public policy should bethere is nothing unusual about that. I lived under a Conservative Government who used to chant the mantra of the mandate. I live under this God-awful Governmentif they will forgive me saying sowho also chant the mantra of the mandate. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Tony Wright) said, the manifesto is a curious document. None of us reads it from cover to cover, apart from those who wrote it. The public at large are unaware of it, but it provided the justification for the Lords' acceptance that the legitimacy they lacked resided elsewhere and that in the end they should defer.
	I look forward to seeing whether the Leader of the House's White Paper is a virtuous document, but if the Lords are to have legitimacy, on whatever basis, of course it will reconfigure the relationship between here and there. In truth, I look forward to that.
	The public are disengaged because, somehow, we beat a drum to a tune that they no longer hear when it comes to the issues that they wish to challenge and the importance of Government. We have become machines of spin and manipulation. Where is the blockage? Most of these arguments have long been discussed and reasoned through. We have only to think of Montesquieu's misunderstanding of the British constitution, of those English gentlemen in the United States in revolt against the Crown, of the Federalist papers, and of the long debate over the very issues that trouble us now. Those arguments are there, and yet here we are talking, and the Government insistthe mantra is still heardthat they must get their business. That has never been a constitutional principle. It is an argument of Government, of course. The Government may get their business if they are supported by Parliament. That is the function of Parliament.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making a wonderful philosophical case and, although I disagree with him about the House of Lords, I think that the points that he is making are excellent. However, is it not a fact that, until the House of Commons takes more control of its time, he will never achieve what he wants to achieve? The advantage of the Lords is that they, and not the Government of the day, are in charge of their time. They can therefore debate more issues that are closer to the people than the House of Commons can.

Richard Shepherd: I am making a case for Parliament and I accept that Parliament is both Chambers. I am proud to be a Member of this House. It was an aspiration. It is part of the history of my country that we, the people, control the Government. But remember: if we have another Chamber that also has the authority of election, with the checks and balance that I seek, we have a tension. I welcome that, as I said earlier. That tension makes for better and more rational government. I have heard the wordit was much used in the '80s when one looked at reformgridlock. Why should we fear that? The United States may or may not be going into gridlock. The essential relationship between two institutionsthe Lords and the Commonsis one of politics. Most people, in the spirit of comity, will negotiate. That is what we want. No one can now negotiate with a Government with a large majority in the House of Commons. In this House, we do not consider proposed legislation any more to any effective purpose. We claim that the only duties of the upper House are revising and improving, and yet when there are matters of principle, I now look to the Lords to look after my civil and political liberties. That is an extraordinary proposition. We, the people, are less attentive to many of the important things.
	I give a cheer for this interesting report. If I were back at the London School of Economics, it would be part of the constitutional law course. Set out in the greatest clarity are the actual conventions as understood today by Members of both Houses of Parliament. However, as others have said, that is a moving feast. A convention for today may not be appropriate for tomorrow. We used to say that it was conventions that made the institutions work. In that spirit, I hope that when the Leader of the House introduces his White Paper, we will have a proper debate that does not just take place between the parties, but is wider than that, because most of us are not in the teams that lead those negotiations. We have views and opinions and what I like about the dynamic of a debate such as today's is that one hears the voice of considerate, thinking, careful Members of Parliament, seeking an ideal: the sovereignty of Parliament.

William Cash: Having listened to the debate and read the report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I believe should be noted with interest, rather than approval, I think that the fact that we forced a vote when we previously considered the subject, when the result was about 411 to 20, has been justified. The reflections of the Committee, which comprised Members from both sides of the House, having examined the wording that my hon. Friend and I challenged at that timeI think that our challenge caused the Leader of the House to run down the corridor to get to the Chamber on time because no vote was expecteddemonstrate that this House operates by behaviour as well as by rules, which is the essence of conventions.
	On the previous occasion, we alighted on the curious question of codification as a matter of considerable concern, so I was glad that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), a distinguished academic lawyer who has examined these matters through the prism of jurisprudence, understood what we were getting at and spoke strongly on the subject, as did the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The process could otherwise have easily been hijacked, with everything going through on the nod. If we had not taken such action, I am not entirely convinced that we would have been in the happy position where the matter received the responsible consideration that it has been given today.
	By reference to other constitutions throughout the rest of world, many of which were born out of, or spawned by, our constitutional experience, the situation is pretty extraordinary. There are Commonwealth countries that have written constitutions, which we do not have. However, I should add that Canada applies the doctrine of conventions. Before I became a Member, I was involved in the patriation proposals with respect to Quebec, which I advised professionally for several years. It was on the question of the Statute of Westminster that the Supreme Court of Canada decided that there had been no illegality regarding the patriation proposals for the Canadian constitutional settlement. Although there had been no breach of the legal rules, however, there had been breaches of convention because the provinces had been insufficiently consulted before representatives came to Westminster to ask whether the constitution should be repatriated.
	Huge matters can thus turn on conventions. Indeed, the relationships between the sovereign and the Cabinet and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet turn on conventions. Such
	non-legal rules of the constitution,
	as constitutional conventions have been described, give rise to the Rubik's cube in which we operate. One of the great virtues of the British constitutional arrangement is precisely that it is unwritten. Many fundamental matters turn on the application of constitutional conventions.
	Is it not strange that we should have conventions that are rules, yet are effectively modes of behaviour? They are not enforceable by the courts. They are not legal, or even obligatory. They do not have to be subscribed to, but they are. In a sense, that takes us back to the very question of who we are and what we are in this House of Commons when convened as a Parliament. In practice, we are pragmatic for much of the time. That was why I asked about the Whip system in an intervention. I am afraid that the Whip system is not subject to much in the way of conventions. We rely on the extremely good-natured attitude of many Whips in dealing with Members. Even during the Maastricht debates, I remember that one of the Whipsit would be embarrassing if I revealed who it was

Nicholas Winterton: Why?

William Cash: If hon. Members knew who it was, they would be even more surprised by what I am about to say. He said, Well, Bill, you've got your job to do, and I've got mine. I thought that that was an interesting indication of behaviour, in a way, although that perhaps contradicts my point about the Whip system.
	When we are dealing with the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, we are dealing with the way in which laws are formulated. To repeat what I said earlier, I am concerned about the fact that, these days, so little time is available in the House of Commons, because Standing Orders, which are codified rules, have been imposed on the workings of the House. That has enabled the Whip system to eliminate debate and scrutiny, as a result of which it becomes ever more important for the House of Lords to perform the excellent function that it so often does.
	It is hardly surprising that, according to the evidence in the report, there has been an increase in the number of occasions on which the House of Lords, which is not entirely hereditary, has rebelled against what has been going on in the Commons, irrespective of the number of people appointed by the Prime Minister to the other House. The Lords know that if they do not examine the issues, they might not be examined at all, and that is a very good reason for the continued existence of the House of Lords.
	The primacy of this House must be retained in relation to all the matters that we have discussed, especially taxation and government, which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) so rightly mentioned. However, that must be done without prejudice to the question, What is a manifesto? On the manner in which conventions are meant to operate, one aspect of the report that has intrigued, puzzled and slightly worried me is the reaffirmation of the fact that the House of Lords should be expected to put through a manifesto Bill.
	I see that there are references in the report to the fact that there should not be wrecking amendments. I have to admit to having tabled more than my reasonable share of wrecking amendments over the past 23 years, but I did sosome will doubt thisnot just to be difficult or awkward, but because there were important questions that needed to be debated. On 10 May last year, in another debate on these same matters, I simply insisted, with 10 other hon. Friends and hon. Members, that the motion be put to a vote. In fact, it turned out that 20 people voted no in the deferred Division. We did so because we disagreed, at that time, with the way in which the terms of reference had been devised.
	Fundamentally, we are dealing with the apogee of self-restraint. That is what the issue of conventions between the two Houses is all about. In due course, the House of Lords is more than likely to be turned into a hybrid Chamber, in which between 70 and 80 per cent. of Members are elected. I hear what other hon. Members saythey say that they have heard it all before and it will not happenbut I sense that it is more likely to happen than not, this time round. That does not prevent or in any way inhibit the necessity of maintaining the conventions, because although the Salisbury reasons for the conventions will have gone, others are inherent in the existence of two Houses, one of which has to revise, and the other of which has to govern. We are therefore right to be concerned about the nature of those conventions. There is a wonderful expression in Through the Looking Glass:
	When I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean...The question is...which is to be masterthat's all.
	That consideration applies to conventions, which mean what we choose them to mean. It is a question, too, of who is to be master, but the question of behaviour is at the heart of the matter. In my previous career, I looked at the conventions a great deal, and I was deeply impressed by the work of Geoffrey Marshall, who sadly died a few years ago. I had many discussions with him and he offered an excellent summary of conventions as
	non-legal rules of constitutional behaviour.
	Conventions have been described, too, as
	rules of constitutional behaviour which are considered to be binding by and upon those who operate the Constitution but which are not enforced by the law courts...nor by the presiding officers in the Houses of Parliament.
	That is an interesting addition to the definition, which ultimately depends on the way in which we approach the relationship between elected representatives and the strict rules that apply to the conduct of our affairs.
	One of the most intriguing and worrying aspects of the proposals is highlighted by paragraph 9 of the Government's response. It refers to paragraph 61 of the report by the Joint Committee, which states:
	Given the weight of evidence...should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again.
	That is obviously the case, and it raises the question of the nature of conventions. As has been said, a convention cannot exist until it is well established. Rules and behaviour are a matter of habit, practice and tradition, and it is extraordinary that the Government should suggest that
	further reform should not alter the current role of the Lords as a revising chamber, and that the conventions governing its relationship with the Commons are fit for that purpose.
	I understand what they are trying to say, but the change in the nature of the House of Lords is bound to have an impact on the application of the conventions. As I have tried to point out, the proposal to change the Lords to a semi-elected Chamber with different functions would not in itself prevent the conventions from continuing to operate.
	It was odd that the Joint Committee should say that neither House of Parliament regularly rejects secondary legislation. It states, however, that
	in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for either House to do so.
	It goes on to say:
	Although we have offered a list of examples of exceptional circumstances...we do not recommend defining them further.
	It gives examples of statutory instruments that could be amended, such as those connected with skeleton Bills, which have been mentioned by several hon. Members. I pointed out in an intervention that under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, which covers not just burdens on business, but a vast range of departmental activities, it is clear that given the huge sphere within which the Act will operate, and the open-ended nature of its provisions, those orders and statutory instruments must be capable of amendment.
	In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, I pointed out that only a few months ago, in June, the Opposition voted by whipping my amendment regarding that Act in order to ensure that we would be able to override the statutory instruments and other legislation that flow from the European Communities Act, and to require the judiciary, in particular the House of Lords, to comply with that subsequent Westminster legislation. That was endorsed by a further vote by my party in the House of Lords.
	That is an anchor and a huge opportunity. After all, we are on record as saying that we want to change the social chapter, for example, and I can think of many other examples among the huge raft of legislation emanating from the European Community and the European Union. The European Constitution has effectively gone for the time being, although Mrs. Merkel is re-introducing it today. My comments do not in any way absolve the Leader of the House of my train fare to Blackburn, in the light of what he said earlier.
	The necessity for us to assert the supremacy of this House lies at the heart of the relationship between ourselves and the electorate, and derives from it. It is also a matter of deep importance in the relationship between the two Houses. In relation to European legislation or devolved legislation or, for example, in relation to the question of Scottish independence, which is being raised by the Scottish nationalists, in the arrangements in the Scotland Act 1998 the question arises whether legislation should be passed in this House, as I suggested in a letter in  The Daily Telegraph yesterday, to provide for a referendum of the whole of the United Kingdom with respect to the future relationship between ourselves, Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, and also in respect of Wales and our membership of the European Union.
	With reference to the relationship between the two Houses, the question whether the legislation that will be needed is capable of being overridden by using the reserve powers of Westminster as against the Scottish Parliament to legislate could turn out to be extremely contentious. A matter of such huge constitutional importance could turn into a battleground not about a matter as irrelevant as the Hunting Act 2004, important as it was from a social and a countryside point of view, but about whether the Scottish nationalists, if they took control of the Scottish Parliament, could hold a referendum in Scotland as a devolved power. An issue of such major constitutional importance could have implications for the relationship between this House and the House of Lords. That would bring into high profile the conventions that apply between the two Houses. The issues raised in the report are of great interest. I am glad that the Committee came up with so many useful recommendations. I hesitate to say that I approve of all of them, because some matters remain unconsidered and will develop further in future. On the whole, this is not an occasion when one would feel it necessary to divide the House, but there were important reasons for doing so when the process began.
	In the past, it has always been understood as a matter of convention that if the House of Lords did not ultimately accept a subordinate role when confronted with the determined will of the House of Commons, it knew that its remaining legislative powers would be cut back still further. That is why it has backed off on so many occasions when ping-pong has gone on, sometimes on extremely important matters. Ultimately, that gives rise to the question of the way in which the Parliament Acts operate. Several Members who spoke about that legislation perhaps overlooked the fact that it is not entrenched. People think that it is more entrenched than it really is. It was born out of a massive row in 1911but we have had massive rows for the past 400 years. Both Houses operate best when they are acting on the basis of mutually understood good behaviour as between one another.
	That pragmatic self-restraint could be put under a great deal of stress in future, particularly if there is to be an elected, or largely elected, House of Lords, which I happen to think would be a good thing. If we get the balance between the functions of the two Houses right, and if we have a different electoral cycle and system, we can avoid clashes, but we cannot avoid the necessity of maintaining the conventions in a way that prevents the unnecessary stress and tension that could otherwise arise. I look forward to hearing what the Leader of the House says by way of conclusion.

Jack Straw: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but I regret to have to tell him that under the rules of Strictly Come Blackburn he has nul points. The deal was that if he held himself back and did not mention the European Union in the context of this debate, I would provide him with a free ticket to Blackburn. He managed to do that until relatively late in the evening, but then I am afraid that he faulted himself and fell back into the condition that used to drive the Conservative Whips completely demented during the latter years of the Major Government. I am sure that the noble Lords Goodlad and Ryder will be delighted to hear his exoneration of the Whips' behaviour when they were seeking metaphorically to break his legs, but I remember that the atmosphere at the time was not quite as benign. Whips are Whipsthey are there to deliver a majority for the Government.
	I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) that, unless we tore up our constitutional arrangements and had a presidential system with a separation of legislative and Executive functions, as happens in America and several European countries, it will always be the case that, if the Executive are drawn from the legislature, they must have a means of delivering their majority and their legislation.
	It has been a good debate, which reminds meas happens every time I stay for a whole debateof an important value of the Chamber: listening to colleagues from all parties, thinking about what is said and following the shift and flow of the argument. It is the only way in which we can make effective decisions and changes in this place for the benefit of society.
	There is widespread approval of the report. I do not detect that there will be a Division this evening. That enables me to repeat my opening comments that the report is important and a tribute to the work of all members of the Joint Committee, some of whom were present throughout the debate. I thank them for their work and the wisdom reflected in the report.
	It was ungraciously suggested that the Government had decided to set up a committee on conventions because we wished somehow to restrain the powers of the other place. Had that been the case, I would have owned up to it, but it was not. The provenance of the Joint Committeethe second Cunningham committeewas our manifesto commitment to set up such a committee to establish a baseline and, if possible, an understanding, which has been achieved, between parties at both ends of the building about what the current conventions mean, thus forming a foundation for further discussions on the reform of the other place, to which all three parties are committed.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned the Liberal Democrats' commitment. We spelled out our commitment at the beginning of volume 1 of the report. It is worth reminding hon. Members that the Conservative party manifesto stated:
	We will seek cross-party consensus for a substantially elected House of Lords.
	I am glad to have facilitated the Conservative party's attempts to seek that cross-party consensus, albeit that they do so in opposition, through the work of the cross-party group, which I chair, and on which the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and two of her colleagues sit.
	I believe that hon. Members will endorse the description and analysis of the conventions. However, as the Joint Committee said, the report describes the conventions as they apply today, with the existing composition of the House of Lords. It was easy to anticipate that most of today's debate would turn on whether the conventions could remain in force in a reformed second Chamber with an elected element, and whether they would survive a significant change in composition. Opinions will differ.
	I fully understand, for the reasons that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) outlined, that some people take the view that the second Chamber should be wholly appointed. They believe that for a variety of reasons, but one is apprehension about what would happen to the powers of this place if there were an elected element in the other place. I have considered the matter and shifted my position. I have been informed by the reports of four previous Committees, including the royal commission, which have considered the matter in detail.
	My answer is this: first of all, I believe that if there is a reformed second Chamberand provided that it is not a replica or rival to this Chamberit is perfectly compatible with the widely accepted need in our system for a strong Executive. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) made that point. I have been a member of a strong Executive for nearly 10 years and I opposed a strong Executive for 18 years previously. My view has not changedif there is a strong Executive, one also needs a strong Parliament. The purpose of that strong Parliament is not to cause Executive gridlock, but to ensure that Executive decisions are of a high quality and based on the right judgments and considerations and to hold individual Ministers, for example Home Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries, to account for the considerable powers that they exercise on behalf of this place and the people of this country.
	To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)originally in his Select Committee's report on the future of the House of Lordswe are not playing a zero-sum game between having a strong Executive and having a strong Parliament, provided that the difference in functions is understood. For sure, if Parliament ends up seeking to be an Executive by another name, there will of course be gridlock, but if there is an understanding about the balancing functions, there is no reason why there should be gridlock.
	The second issue is whether an elected element in the other place is compatible with what are regardedI believe that we are about to endorse themas the essential aspects of the primacy of this House, as expressed by the Parliament Acts, the conventions on finance, Supply and taxation, and by the other conventions set out in the report that put a gloss, for example, on the nuclear option of the Parliament Acts and enable these Chambers to function. Again, my answer is in the affirmative.
	In their response to the Committee's report, the Government sought to provide some detail about how those previous distinguished bodies of people came to the view that I have just expressed. The Wakeham report stated clearly in its second recommendation, which I read out in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), firmly and explicitly that the House of Commons was the principal political forum and should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of proposed legislation. The Public Administration Committee said:
	There is no proposal for any major change to the role and functions of the House of Lords. This is one of the fundamentals on which there is broad agreement, and it is one of the firm foundations on which reform must be built.
	Significantly, the first report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, which was also chaired by my noble Friend Lord Cunningham, strongly supported the continuation of the existing conventions. The terms of reference were different, so there was no need for a paragraph 61. The report stated:
	We envisage a continuation of the present role of the House of Lords, and of the existing conventions governing its relation with the House of Commons. These conventions, which are of a self-restraining nature, impact profoundly on relations between the Houses and need to be understood as a vital part of any future constitutional settlement.
	The first report was written in the context of a number of different proposals on the future composition of the House of Lords ranging from an all appointed House right through to a fully elected House.

John Spellar: Why would an elected upper House that had faced the electorate on the basis of obtaining a mandate of one form or another not seek to assert its views? Indeed, if its election had been more recent than one for the House of Commons, might it not argue that its mandate was based on a more recent expression of public opinion? Why would it restrain itself in those circumstances?

Jack Straw: If we were establishing a replica Chamber, my right hon. Friend's fears would be justified. They happen to be my fears, too, and those of anyone else who has ever thought about this matter. If we moved from the all-appointed Chamber that we have today to one in which all the Members were elected on the same day and all had constituencies, the present primacy of the House of Commons would not have a prayer. Everyone understands that; we would have two Houses of Commons. My right hon. Friend is right in that regard. However, that is not a proposition that anyone has seriously put before the House. Everyone accepts that we must avoid allowing the other place to become a replica of the House of Commons, and all the practical proposals have sought to do that.
	The royal commission looked at the matter in some detail, and received some mocking when it said in answer to one questioner that the proposals for an elected element in the other place would mean that those elected there would probably be elected by a different electoral system, and would certainly be elected for a much longer period than we are. There would also be restrictions on whether they could stand again for election to the other place. All those measures were designed to ensure that it was understood from the beginning that their role in the second Chamber was a different one, and that they were not there to replicate the House of Commons. Up to now, that view has all been broadly agreed and reflected in all the reports.
	The evidence of the Clerk of the Parliaments was cited in the debate, and I take it seriously. Indeed, I have always taken seriously the evidence of senior civil servants in the Departments in which I have worked but, in the end, we have to make our own judgments and form our own opinions. In paragraph 34, the Clerk of the Parliaments said that
	the number of elected members and the mode of election may be crucial for the survival of the convention.
	I agree with that. He went on to say:
	For example the preservation of an appointed element in the Lords and a system of staggered elections for the remainder so that only a minority of membership is elected at any General Election is one way of protecting the convention. There may be others.
	Lest hon. Members should accuse me of partial quotation, I should point out that he continued:
	All in all it is likely to be difficult to ensure that any definition of the convention now would survive a significant change in the composition of the Lords.
	I understand that point. The royal commission, chaired by Lord Wakeham, referred to selection. Whatever we want to call it, however, an indirect mandate is an indirect mandate. I make that point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton. Model A in Lord Wakeham's report describes people being elected by complementary voting, but paragraph 12.42 supports direct election to the other place by thirds, at the same time as the European parliamentary elections.

Nicholas Winterton: Where would be the democratic accountability of someone who was elected to a reformed House of Lords for only one period? That individual would never have to account for their actions to the electorate. Would not the democratic deficit be just as great under the Leader of the House's proposals as he says that it is now in respect of the unelected House of Lords?

Jack Straw: I do not accept that. Plenty of people have served in this Chamber for only one term, as it turned out, either by choice or by the decision of the electorate. That does not make their contribution any less legitimate.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: In a moment.
	If we want a reformed Chamber, and if we want to answer the questions posed eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and othersabout who the people in the second Chamber are, why they are there and how they come to be theremy judgment is that in the 21st century a significant proportion of the House of Lords should be elected; others may differ. It is no secret that I favour a compromise of 50:50. I will not die in a ditch over that, and the exact proportion will finally be a matter for the House to determine in a free vote; I am one of 650 Members.
	That is simply my judgment, which is borne out by tests of public opinion

Andrew Tyrie: Overwhelmingly.

Jack Straw: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment from a sedentary position. When people examine the method by which albeit distinguished people get to the House of Lords, they find the proposal that everybody should arrive there by that process a little eccentric. I used to have some spirited discussions with people who became friends in the Khatami Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I said that I thought that they should make their system a bit more democratic, and referred to the power of undemocratic elements within the system. They used to say to me the words, The House of Lords.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend, who is normally charmingly articulate, is getting tongue-tied in an effort to deal with the situation. Does he really believe that anybody elected to this House of Commons acts in a kind of vacuum and does not look ahead to the consequences at the next general election of what she or he does? Is not it fantastic that all those who propose that people should be elected in one way or other to the House of Lords then seek to erect a firewall around them, to prevent them exploiting the fact that they get there through votes?

Jack Straw: If I was tongue-tied, I apologise. To the extent that I am confused, it is because my right hon. Friend seems to have been on quite a long journey since he signed up to the royal commission report. The principles that I have been enunciating about a fixed term of, say, 15 years, and no possibility of standing for re-election, are those that he recommended as a member of that commission and a signatory to its report. I happen to believe that there was wisdom within that report.
	I am sure that we will return to the central issue in much greater detail when the White Paper and the debate and free vote on composition and much else besides follow. I hope and believe that the hon. Member for Stone is correct in saying that sentiment is changing and recognising that we have to move on, but time will tell. Meanwhile, I yet again commend the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions

Nicholas Winterton: With approval.

Jack Straw: I commend the motion before the House for approving that Committee's report.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House takes note with approval of the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions of the UK Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 1212 of Session 2005-06).

ADJOURNMENT (FEBRUARY)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 8th February, do adjourn till Monday 19(th) February 2007. [Mr. Heppell.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

EU Enlargement: Bulgaria and Romania

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13347/06, Commission Communication: Monitoring report on the state of preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania; and endorses the Government's support for EU enlargement. [Mr. Heppell.]
	 Question agreed to.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Heppell.]

Rob Marris: A potential environmental catastrophe is facing the country and starting to unfold. If that catastrophe comes to pass, our children and our children's children may not rue the day that we failed to take action, because those generations may not exist. I think that it is as extreme as that.
	I am, of course, referring to the challenge of climate change. This Government have a very good record on the causes of climate change, on emissions and on global warming. There is the work done at Kyoto, and the fact that we are on track to meet the Kyoto targets for cutting emissions; there is the work that we have led on carbon trading schemes; and there is the leadership that the Government have shown on the world stage. When it comes to dealing with the effects of climate change, however, the Government's record is rather more mixed. I say that despite the observation by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that the United Kingdom is one of the countries that are better placed and better prepared to deal with climate change.
	It saddens me that when we debate climate change in this place, we almost invariably talk about the causesthe emissions siderather than about coping with the effects. I have made three long speeches in the Chamber in the past year on the effect of climate change and the things that I think the United Kingdom ought to be doing. As far as I am aware, I am the only Member who addresses the issue in the Chamber, certainly in any depth.
	Climate change is not a recent development. I learned about the effects of greenhouse gases, hydrofluorocarbons and so on when I was at university in 1973. The problem of emissions of certain gaseous substances changing our environment has been known about for well over 30 years, yet we are only now starting to take action on the effects side. Climate change is clearly happening. In my garden, until recently, we had Molyneux roses in bloomfrom the excellent David Austin Roses, based near my constituency. We have had more floods and heavy rain in this country in recent years than we have experienced for thousands of years. We have also had very hot summers. My grandfather, Colonel Chetwode Crawley, skated on the Thames in the 1890s; that would have been unthinkable in recent years.
	In a recent report, the OECD said:
	There tends to be a view that climate change is decades away and that it will affect faraway places. But if you look at the Alps... you can tell it is happening already.
	It is certainly happening in faraway places. Christian Aid says:
	Poorer countries are often located in the regions of the world where the climate is already variable and highly volatile. These countries are likely to experience a significant increase in both variability and volatility even if the increase in global average temperature was kept within two degrees.
	Christian Aid is absolutely right about the effects in other countries, and I do not wish to downgrade that, but I want to focus on the effects in the United Kingdom, which can be crudely divided into winter and summer effects.
	Winter effects include coastal erosion, with higher tides and increasing water levels as the temperature of the water rises, and coastal and inland flooding. The diameters of storm water drains are insufficient and larger diameters will be needed. The same applies to drainpipes on buildings. There is disruption to logistics in the supply chain if transport is interfered with, for example by flooding. Similarly and more prosaically, there is the problem of rats. We have more rats now because winters are less cold and they do not die off.
	As for the summer effects, they include health effects such as an increased incidence of heatstroke and probably of skin cancers. The asthma season is getting longer and tropical diseases such as malaria are starting to come into southern England. Alien predator species are also coming in, there are effects on wildlife and the crops that we grow, and there is a need for reservoirs in the summer. We have had a drought in the south-east since 2004, and it is almost a year-round drought.
	One subject that straddles the two crude sides of the equation that I have mentionedthe winter and the summeris the issue of building regulations. We need to do more in respect of water efficiency and shade because of droughts in the summer. We need to do more in terms of insulation to cut emissions, too. There must also be improvements such as better waterproofing and drainpipes, because of heavier rainfall in the winter.
	What are bodies other than the Government doing? Encouraging things are being done in the United Kingdom. Around the country, the Wildlife Trust is already dealing with the challenge. Its recent report, A Living Landscape, highlights the importance of landscape scale and gives examples of work being done. The black country urban park takes that approach in the urban area that the Minister and I representas do you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country has been working with the four local authorities in the area to identify and improve open spaces and to develop corridors for wildlife with rivers and canals. The Smestow valley in my constituency is one such focus. As well as improving the wildlife value of the black country, that work should help to build and repair local communities and bring economic and social and health benefits to the people who live there.
	The City of London has commissioned a consultancycalled, appropriately, Acclimatiseto assist in developing a climate change adaptation strategy for the City. A report will be published shortly, and it will make recommendations for action and develop practical tools to enable the City of London and its stakeholders to take into account the changing climate.
	The Royal  SunAlliance insurance company, the third largest general insurer in the United Kingdom, insures more than 1.3 million private homes. It remains committed to providing cover against flood damage for its customers. I salute it for that, because that is difficult as more than 500,000 homes are at significant risk of flooding. The Stern report said that the cost of flooding to the UK
	could increase from 0.1 per cent. of GDP to 0.3-0.4 per cent. of GDP if the global average temperature increases by 3 or 4(o)C.
	The Association of British Insurers has done excellent work on adapting to the effects of climate change. Its Financial risks of climate change document was published in 2005; its A future for the floodplains was published last July; and it also published Coastal flood riskthinking for tomorrow, acting today last November, which is only two months ago.
	The ABI recommends ensuring that current building codes reflect future severe weather conditions, investing extra in improved coastal defences and a long-term flood management strategy. It points out:
	Many of the potential costs could be avoided by taking action now.
	It also points out:
	Some 570,000 homes are at high flood risk, compared with the estimate of 220,000 when current flood defence spending levels were set in 2002.
	That total has increased a lot in the past four years. It recommends that Government spending on flood defences needs to increase by 10 per cent. a year to 750 million by 2011. It is absolutely right.
	The Environment Agency has produced a wonderful briefing, which it sent to me in preparation for the debate, on the need to adapt to the unavoidable consequences of climate change. It talks about addressing flash flooding, winter flooding, winter storms and sea level rise, threats to water supply, hot summers and threats to biodiversity.
	Last March, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs produced a document, Climate Change the UK programme 2006which is a good start. Last month, the Department for Communities and Local Government produced a consultation document entitled, Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change, Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. Those documents are steps forward, as is the Stern report, of course, which was published last autumn. But what worries me in particular about them is that although the DEFRA document, for example, talks about adapting to and dealing with the effects of climate change, less than 10 per cent. of it deals with that aspect of climate change. More than 90 per cent. of it deals with the causeswith emissions. That balance is wrong.
	There is a similar situation with the DCLG consultation document, which states:
	'Planning and Climate Change' sets out how the spatial planning system should contribute to reducing carbon emissions (mitigation) arising from built development. The PPS also provides guidance on how the planning regime should address the climate change now accepted as inevitable, such as sea level rise and higher temperatures (adaptation).
	But again, only a fairly small proportion of that document actually deals with effects and adaptation. The same is true of the Stern report. From memory, only about 40 of its 700-odd pages deal with adaptation. We have got the balance wrong.
	I salute the work of the Minister, who was in Great Yarmouth on Monday introducing an initiative to assist 90 properties. That is part of an overall initiative involving 15 pilot schemes and a budget of 1.7 million, which is aimed at minimising the growing problem of urban flooding.
	The sadness is that although we have known about this problem for a long time, many of these documents still talk about the research that needs to be done. Of course research is important, but I wish that we had started on it much more comprehensively and a longer time ago. Under DEFRA, we have the UK climate impacts programme, but my suspicion is that it is rather under-resourced. It consists of 15 scientists based at Oxford, and from what I have seen they are doing good work, but I suggest to the Minister that in order to deal with adaptationthe effects of climate change, which are already taking place in this countrythat programme, or something very like it, needs to be expanded greatly now, instead of waiting.
	I have a series of questions for the Minister, based on the proposals outlined in last spring's DEFRA document entitled, Climate Change: the UK Programme 2006. I quite understand that he might not be able to answer all of them tonight. By what date will the adaptation policy framework be published? Has the review and assessment of existing and new policies for their vulnerability to climate change impacts, and their contribution to adaptation, been completed and published? If not, when will it be published? Has the study of the potential role of regulation and standards in accelerating action to adapt, in order to inform future development of the adaptation policy framework, been initiated? If so, what is the expected publication date? If it has not been initiated, by what date will it be? What was the funding of the UK climate impact programme in each of the past five years, and what is the anticipated funding for each of the following three years?
	I should be grateful if the Minister said whether the study of the business costs and benefits of adapting to climate change has been initiated. If so, what is the expected publication date? If it has not been initiated, by what date will it be? By what date will the UK Biodiversity Partnership publish its practical guidance? By what date will the revised guidance statement on the role of spatial planning be published, if it is not the document to which I have already referred? By what date will the revised guidance on implementing flood and coastal erosion risk management measures be published? By what date will the results of collaborative research on the effects of climate change on UK priority species be published? By what date will the long-term monitoring network on the effects of climate change on UK priority species be published? By what date will the review of current activities to assess the impact of climate change on the marine environment be published? Has the assessment of changes in the distribution and abundance of marine species been published, and if so on what date? Finally, has the programme of research to investigate cross-sectoral issues been commissioned, and if so on what date?
	The convention of the House is that if one has an Adjournment debate on a particular topic, as I have tonight, any other hon. Member who wishes to make a brief comment should seek permission from the Member and Minister concerned. It is sad that on what I regard as a major issue for this country, not a single hon. Member has approached me and there is not a single Opposition Member in their place. This issue is a huge challenge for our country and we have not yet gone far enough to meet it.
	My final, rather poignant, point is about an article that I clipped from  The Sunday Times last Sunday, which refers to Sir David Attenborough presenting a near-apocalyptic vision of Britain's future in a BBC documentary Climate Change: Britain Under Threat, which will be screened next Sunday. It presents projected snapshots of Britain in 2020, 2050 and 2080. By 2050, average temperatures could have risen by 2.5C, and by 2080 by 4C. That is a massive change. It is poignant because when I turned over the newspaper clipping, I found printed on the other side an advertisement for cheap flights.

Ian Pearson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) on securing this Adjournment debate on adapting to the effects of climate change. I am grateful to him for raising this subject, because I agree that it is one about which we do not speak often enough. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are in no way complacent about the issue.
	On the general point that my hon. Friend made about the number of pages devoted to adaptation, as opposed to mitigation, in the Stern report or the climate change programme review, I would point out that some of the most complex mathematical proofs are elegantly short. Some of the best books are not the lengthiest. Similarly, one cannot judge the quality of a speech by its length.
	We all know and understand why it is vital to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. The science is increasingly widely accepted. Even countries that have been sceptical about climate change are starting to listen. In the United States, for the first time ever, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is now saying that greenhouse gas increases are causing climate changea marked change from just a year or two ago. The publication of the EU's climate change and energy package last Wednesday shows how effective the UK's leadership has been in getting action to cut emissions across Europe. But tackling climate change requires more than just mitigation, as my hon. Friend has rightly argued. Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is vital to ensure that we avoid future dangerous climate change, but we also need to adapt to the unavoidable impacts caused by past emissions.
	Adaptation does not signal a failure in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Carbon stays in the system for around 100 years, and because of inertia in the climate system, the warming effects peak about 40 years after emission. So the climate change that we are experiencing now is caused by our past emissions. Even if greenhouse gas emissions stopped completely tomorrow, a certain amount of further climate change is inevitable. So we need to adapt to the impacts that we are already seeing, and those that we expect to see in the future.
	I do not propose to recount the evidence in detail, but impacts such as the 35,000 excess deaths across Europe during the 2003 heat wave, and the 6 billion worth of insurance claims for flood and storm damage between 1998 and 2003 here in the UK, could become more severe and more commonplace in the future. Certainly, the weather over the past few weeks has not been what any of us expect in January. We may not have been sunbathing as they were in New York, but last night I saw people sitting out on the Terrace of the House of Commons in what should be one of the coldest months of the year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West rightly pointed out that last year Sir Nick Stern set out the challenges that we face. Adaptation can be complex, and there are many constraints that we need to overcome. In particular, we need to deal with uncertainty about how our climate will change and what level of risk we need to plan for. At the same time, however, Stern also argues that in many cases adaptation options will provide benefits in excess of the costs.
	Early action to deal with the impacts of climate change will reduce damage to the environment, property and quality of life. A study by the Association of British Insurers showed that for new developments in east London, proactive measures to prepare for climate change could reduce the annual costs of flooding by almost 80 to 90 per cent., a saving of almost 1 billion.
	Adaptation can also provide benefits that go beyond those relating to climate change. For instance, incorporating green space in urban environments helps keep surrounding buildings cooler, improves water management, supports biodiversity, provides local recreation facilities and helps foster sustainable communities.
	My honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has said on more than one occasion that we were not doing enough to deal with the impacts of climate change in the UK. He is right: we are not. Despite all the available information and evidence, only 10 per cent. of FTSE 100 companies say that they are taking into account the impacts of climate change when looking at their risk management strategies.
	The construction industry could be one of the sectors hardest hit by climate change, but it also has the opportunity to provide key wins on adaptation. However, more than 40 per cent. of companies expressed little or no concern about their vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.
	We canand we need todo much more to ensure that the UK adapts to climate change successfully. Our objective must be to ensure that the UK is well adapted, in both the business and the household sector, and in government. However, it is not just a Government responsibility, it is a national responsibility.
	Everyone needs to factor climate change into their risk-management and decision-making frameworks. We all need to ask ourselves, In 10, 20 or 40 years' time, will my objectives, investments or infrastructure still be viable in the face of a changing climate? However, although we can and must do more, it is important to recognise what we have achieved already, both at home and internationally.
	The UK is a world leader in impacts and adaptation work. Our climate impacts programme, UKCIP, will celebrate its 10th anniversary this year. It was set up by the then Department of the Environment in 1997, with just two people to co-ordinate impacts research. Now, it has a staff of 16 who work with a wide variety of organisations, including local authorities, planners, financial institutions, schools and public sector bodies to develop tools and methods to implement adaptation strategies.
	Well-adapted buildings must be a priority. One example is Redhill school in Worcester, not far from my constituency, or from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. By using UKCIP's adaptation wizard, the architect and the local council have designed a building that includes a number of adaptation features, including sustainable drainage, a green roof to help reduce run-off and cool the classrooms, and overhanging eaves and canopies to prevent the school from overheating in the hotter summers that we are expecting, and are already experiencing.
	Last week I met the co-ordinators of the regional climate change partnerships. They work with people from a wide variety of local sectors, raising awareness of adaptation and building capacity to implement adaptation strategies. They have set up a number of excellent projects. I mentioned the example of Redhill school, but another is the urban redevelopment project at Bilston, a borough represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It is a classic example of what can be done. Climate change considerations were built into the project from the start, keeping extra costs down and ensuring better protection against increased rainfall and good environmental benefits.
	The south-west partnership is working with the tourist industry to develop an adaptation action pack. The London partnership has published a checklist for development, which gives developers guidance about how to minimise climate change impacts when designing buildings. Such guidance is being used more and more widely across the UK. I could list many other excellent examples of the work of those partnerships, supported by UKCIP.
	I want to highlight local government, which is of key importance. Local authorities are in a prime position to deliver adaptation on the ground. They manage a range of services and have responsibilities for a number of the functions that are being affected by our changing climatefor example, flooding, social services, housing, the environment and biodiversity. A number of local authorities are leading the way and we are working with them to raise awareness of adaptation among others.
	More than 200 local authorities have now signed the Nottingham declaration, committing them to take action on both mitigation and adaptation. To support their work, UKCIP, the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust have developed a web-based tool to guide local authorities through the development of adaptation and mitigation strategies.
	UKCIP continues to develop new tools for local authorities. It is piloting local climate impact profilesa way to give councils real insight into the local impacts that may occur in a changing climate and also to look at lessons learned from past weather events.
	Our work is not limited to the United Kingdom. We are leading the way overseas, too. We have developed bilateral programmes with China and India to support them in assessing the impacts of climate change. We are also heavily involved in international negotiations under the UN framework convention on climate change, which produced successful agreement of the Nairobi adaptation work plan in November 2006 at the climate change conference in Kenya. That five-year programme of work will assist all parties, in particular in developing countries, to improve their understanding and assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, and to make more informed decisions on practical adaptation actions and measures, which will allow them to respond to climate change on a sound and planned scientific, technical and socio-economic basis.
	Meanwhile, the Department for International Development has ensured that its development projects are resilient to projected climate change. Its country action plans take climate change into account and it works with Governments to make climate change a real consideration in planning policy. Again, that echoes the approach that we are taking at home: adaptation must not be seen as a stand-alone policy, but as something that must be taken into account in all sectors.
	I want to say something about our work on phase 2 of the adaptation policy framework for the UK. As I have already said, our phase 1 consultation showed that there is much activity on the ground, but we need a national framework to give a strategic and coherent vision of what a well-adapted UK should look like. I realise that the Government need to provide strong leadership and clear direction. In phase 2, we are drawing up a cross-Government framework, which will identify priority areas for action, where Departments can work more closely together to ensure that effective action is taken. It will define Government roles and responsibilities, encourage each Department to draw up its own assessment of climate change impacts and ensure that the Government put adaptation into the mainstream across all their work. It is my intention that the framework will be published at the end of this year.
	As I have already said, we need to do much more. We cannot do this work alone. For the UK successfully to adapt to climate change, Government action alone is not enough. All decision makersin the public and private sectors, at national and local levelneed to take climate change into account on a daily basis and to plan for the adaptation work that will be needed for the future.
	We are not just talking about a future event, however. Climate change is already happening, and we all need to take responsibility for dealing with the changes. Of course, we want action on mitigation so that we can lessen the future impact, but there is absolutely no doubt that winning the battle against climate change requires concerted effort both on mitigation and adaptation. Yes, we have to stop the rise in greenhouse gases, but we also have to face the reality of a climate that is changing and ensure that we are equipped to deal with it.
	Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on securing a debate on an issue of key importance to all our futures. He put a number of detailed questions about the climate change programme review. Given the limited time for the debate, I shall write to him about those, but I want to assure him again that the Government are not complacent and that we are committed
	 The motion having been made at Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.